Should you need to be pass a credit check in order to vote?

Should you need to have a certain credit score in order to vote?


  • Total voters
    85
Yeah, I read the OP twice, but I still could not understand. "Stolen" by whom? What the hell should a credit report have to do with one's right to vote, i.e. whether or not one is a citizen or not?

This is so blatantly absurd I am still feeling like I'm missing something.



Look, there's only one motive for denying other people the right to vote. And that is to strip away property and liberty from those people. Conservatives have traditionally tried to limit the franchise as much as possible because doing so protects their ability to prosper at the expense of others, rather than from any actual work on their own part. So the tories ignored the petitions of the colonists, not because the colonists didn't deserve representation, but because giving them representation would cut into the free ponies the Parliament had voted themselves at the expense of the colonists. Property owners resisted giving the franchise to non property owners because those property owners were voting themselves free ponies at the expense of non property owners. Women, same story different verse. Blacks, same story, different verse.

Now America's conservatives, and, with the most stunning of irony, some people who claim to be libertarians, want even more free ponies. What's more, they have utterly convinced themselves that all of the ponies should always be free for them, and that it is their fundamental god given right to have free ponies. But what stands in their way is that the people they want to take the free ponies from tend to be more likely to not vote for conservatives.

Translation: Conservatives want the rich to have a far larger share of the nation's total income. And they also want a far more oppressive and authoritarian government. And they flat out do not care about the affect that will have on the nation. But in order to get it, they need to suppress the votes of as many people as they can that will not vote for their agenda. Which largely means minorities and the young. And so they act to disenfranchise these people.

It is all about money and liberty. They are trying to take the votes because their intention is to take the incomes and the liberties, and the votes stand in their way.
 
Look, there's only one motive for denying other people the right to vote. And that is to strip away property and liberty from those people.
Out of interest, how do you feel about the disenfranchisement of Confederates after the Civil War? Personally, I'm quite happy to acknowledge that this constituted a "stripping of property and liberty"- frankly I would have just hanged the bastards- but I wonder if you would be so willing to either endorse such activity, or to recognise activity you endorse as such ( whatever the case may be).
 
Out of interest, how do you feel about the disenfranchisement of Confederates after the Civil War? Personally, I'm quite happy to acknowledge that this constituted a "stripping of property and liberty"- frankly I would have just hanged the bastards- but I wonder if you would be so willing to either endorse such activity, or to recognise activity you endorse as such ( whatever the case may be).



People who commit crimes forfeit their property and liberty, at least to some extent, assuming they are convicted, all the time. It's not that different. Currently in the US it is common that people currently in prison, and I think in some cases people on parole and probation, cannot vote. (here, found list) Honestly, I'm not really happy with that. But I'm not certain that I've formed a definitive opinion on the matter either. Though recently my inclination is to say that if you are a citizen over 18, you do not face restrictions on voting. Including the currently imprisoned.

For the Civil War soldiers, I would say a period of probation might not have been out of line. Maybe or maybe not with suspension of voting rights. At least through the reconstruction period, to avoid disruption of that. For the government officials I'm inclined to be harsher. Lets face it, these people barely got a slap on the wrist for their actions. I would have taken all of the property of slave holders and stripped it away and given it to the slaves as reparations. They can all have their voting rights after that. Former slaves included.

So any loss of property or liberty by the Confederates was not a grasping for power and property by the Union, but rather a criminal penalty. It was not done for the purpose of enriching the victors, but rather for the purpose of punishing the traitors.

Most other restrictions on voting are different, they are for the purpose of enriching, or empowering, the victors. These voting restrictions Republicans are fighting for now are targeted to have specific outcomes in elections. And then to use those election outcomes to follow an agenda that increases their wealth and power. And to me it is fundamentally different to take the liberty and property of others to punish others for their actual actions than it is to take it for self-enrichment.
 
What, all of them? You think everyone who fought against the Union was a liberty-hating danger to peace and stability?

Not necessarily, but they were traitors. Literally.
 
What, all of them? You think everyone who fought against the Union was a liberty-hating danger to peace and stability?
Well, I really meant the upper echelons, rather than every last private and clerk. Probably should have been a little more clear about that,...

So any loss of property or liberty by the Confederates was not a grasping for power and property by the Union, but rather a criminal penalty. It was not done for the purpose of enriching the victors, but rather for the purpose of punishing the traitors.
(This seems to be the jist of it, so to save space I'll just quote this.)

I agree that the the Union certainly had more benevolent motives in disenfranchising Southern aristocrats than the Republicans have in disenfranchising poor nobodies, but I don't think that they move can be explained in purely punitive terms. The disenfranchisements in question targeted people who were, collectively, in a position to threaten Reconstruction, and was introduced alongside the imposition of military government. (Aside from anything else, a punitive measure should have applied to all participants in the Confederate project, down to the lowest private or clerk, which was not the case.) It seems obvious to me that it was a move intended to maximise the power of one political bloc against another, however justified we may think they were in doing so.
 
Well, historically, disenfranchisement only applied to senior government and military officials, so that's who I was referring to. Sorry for not being clear.


(This seems to be the jist of it, so to save space I'll just quote this.)

I agree that the the Union certainly had more benevolent motives in disenfranchising Southern aristocrats than the Republicans have in disenfranchising poor nobodies, but I don't think that they move can be explained in purely punitive terms. The disenfranchisements in question specifically targeted senior Confederate figures who were in a position to threaten Reconstruction, and was introduced alongside the imposition of military government. (Aside from anything else, a punitive measure should have applied to all participants in the Confederate project, down to the lowest private or clerk, which was not the case.) It seems obvious to me that it was a move intended to maximise the power of one political bloc against another, however justified we may think they were in doing so.



Motives matter. So do practicalities. Again, the Union wasn't specifically trying to enrich itself at the expense of the Confederacy, but rather trying to put the country back together without slavery. And some Confederate leaders remained an obstacle for that. So denying them power was for the purpose of preventing their interference.

And while it may be fair to say that anyone who acted in collaboration with the Confederacy deserved a level of punishment, the practicalities of that both beggar the resources the Union was willing to continue to commit to enforcing it, and would have crippled any and all hope of a reconciliation. Putting a single country back together was too central of a goal for too much of a vengeance of policy.

Now granted Reconstruction took a serious wrong turn not long afterward, and some (or many) did use the situation to take personal advantage. But that just demonstrates again the inherent danger of disenfranchising anyone. And the fact that Reconstruction went badly and so the freed slaves lost most of what they had gained also shows the huge price of disenfranchisement.

In the 1960s the per capita income of the Confederate states was half that of the Union states. That is the economic cost of disenfranchisement. It is not just the personal costs to the individuals, but the systematic costs to the polity as a whole. As long as the elite keep getting their free ponies, why would they get off their useless asses and work?
 
That's all fair enough, but it doesn't really answer the question of whether post-war disenfranchisement can be described as an attempt to "strip away property and liberty". Setting aside the question as whether we view it as a justified example, would you agree or disagree that it was such an example?
 
I don't think it was attempt to "strip away property and liberty" for the purpose of enriching the victors, rather than to punish criminals. That to me is the distinction.
 
Look, there's only one motive for denying other people the right to vote. And that is to strip away property and liberty from those people. /.../
It is all about money and liberty. They are trying to take the votes because their intention is to take the incomes and the liberties, and the votes stand in their way.
Hey, dude, look, I am not 7. I never had a question about motives behind that proposal. My question was about the justification/legality, or rather lack thereof.

A requirement to have a certain credit score? We are talking about the number that is supposed to reflect one's loanworthiness, right? WTH? Why not just say one has to own a house and ten thousand acres free of mortgage and be done with it? How can a governor even get away with what amounts to restricting voting rights based on one's financial standing or track record - as I understand that? Shouldn't there be some sort of constitutional check or can these guys just write whatever orders they damn well please?

Is the US really a country where an idea to merely require ID, so as to prove one's identity before voting is considered abhorrent, while at the same time, arbitrarily restricting who is even supposed to be eligible is totally kewl and done with a stroke of a pen?
 
A requirement to have a certain credit score? We are talking about the number that is supposed to reflect one's loanworthiness, right? WTH? Why not just say one has to own a house and ten thousand acres free of mortgage and be done with it?
It's only for former felons. For now... :evil:
 
Hey, dude, look, I am not 7. I never had a question about motives behind that proposal. My question was about the justification/legality, or rather lack thereof.

A requirement to have a certain credit score? We are talking about the number that is supposed to reflect one's loanworthiness, right? WTH? Why not just say one has to own a house and ten thousand acres free of mortgage and be done with it? How can a governor even get away with what amounts to restricting voting rights based on one's financial standing or track record - as I understand that? Shouldn't there be some sort of constitutional check or can these guys just write whatever orders they damn well please?

Is the US really a country where an idea to merely require ID, so as to prove one's identity before voting is considered abhorrent, while at the same time, arbitrarily restricting who is even supposed to be eligible is totally kewl and done with a stroke of a pen?


The legality of this, if it was applied to the general public, would fail pretty badly. However each state has different laws for the eligibility of convicted felons. And different laws for the restoration of those people's voting rights.

These could be challenged in court. But there's just a lot of precedent for the policies. So they might not be struck down unless there was a federal law passed that overruled them.
 
Well, I really meant the upper echelons, rather than every last private and clerk

Even then, the classic Confederate is Robert E Lee, a man who simply fought for his state rather than any ideology - had Virginia not seceded, he would have led the Union.

Eh, he made his choice, same as the rest of them. I honestly don't have much time for people who are willing to collaborate with slavers for the sake of a collective fiction.

However disagreeable you may find him, I think it's hard to argue that allowing him to vote with his beliefs would be a betrayal of democracy.
 
Eh, he made his choice, same as the rest of them. I honestly don't have much time for people who are willing to collaborate with slavers for the sake of a collective fiction.
 
Even then, the classic Confederate is Robert E Lee, a man who simply fought for his state rather than any ideology - had Virginia not seceded, he would have led the Union.
Eh, he made his choice, same as the rest of them. I honestly don't have much time for people who are willing to collaborate with slavers for the sake of a collective fiction.
Quite so. Kill 'em all.
 
But you're keeping up with some kinds of news, instead of ignoring everything. And keeping up with science and technology news is crucial in making informed decisions these days.
 
So I've been looking at this, and I don't how it stops anyone from voting as you don't need to pass any credit score, just simply submit one, unless I am mistaken.

Yes, I think it's dumb to have to submit a credit report, but it's a huge difference from submitting a credit report, and passing one.
 
Back
Top Bottom