November 2, 2002
New Mexico to decide if "idiots" can vote
(Zelie Pollon, 11/01/02, Reuters)
New Mexico voters will decide on Tuesday whether they want "idiots" and "insane persons" to vote in their state.
Under the state's Constitution, drafted in 1912, "idiots" and "insane persons", as well as those "convicted of a felonious or infamous crime" are currently prohibited from voting.
Proposed Amendment 2 on the November 5 ballot would strike the terms "idiots" and "insane persons" from the Constitution. The measure will better reflect current understanding of mental health and remove archaic language, supporters said. [...]
Early voter Kathleen MacRae said changing the language made sense to her.
"I'm for liberalising all voting laws. Voting should be open and easy for everyone," she said. "And God knows there are already a lot of idiots voting."
Here are a few restrictions that should be placed on voting:
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 2, 2002 12:52 PM
No. 2 is just silly. My New Hampshire cousin
who studies insect damage to the forests is
somehow less worthy than Orrin Judd?
Obviously he's a dependent of the government and his vote is therefore compromised.
That's why DC doesn't get representation, though I'd give it to them as part of removing it from employees.
My understanding was that DC was denied the
vote not because its residents were employed
by the government but because they were on
the spot and thus subject to unusual
pressure from campaigners.
We tend to forget how isolated our great-
grandfathers were. In "Our Times," Mark
Sullivan has a map showing all the towns
where Bryan spoke after he got the nomination
following the "cross of gold" speech. They were
all in Nebraska and Iowa.
Usually they just ran from their front porch.
Why don't you just make it illegal to vote anything other than Republican? It'd serve the same purpose as your proposal does, and would be much more efficient.
If you really had your way what other good eligibility requirements would you impose?
It'll never happen though.
#2 contradicts #1, since a soldier is usually dependent on the Federal Government for his livelihood.
Nonetheless, #2 makes sense, especially if it applies to government contractors and other people who make most of their money from goods and services sold to the federal government. So employees and major shareholders of companies that sell (say) military hardware to the government would probably lose their votes.
The principle of #2 should also apply to financing and participating in political campaigns. If you lose voting privileges because you're dependent on the federal government then you should lose other political privileges as well.
Is Jeff saying that anyone who is a citizen, not a criminal, literate, and not on welfare is a Republican?
You're right, I'll add military to #2.
That's close isn't it?
My favorite -- anyone who would be rejected for a concealed carry permit loses the right to vote. If they can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with the ballot.
Peter clarifies the issue. If a citizen works on
the loading dock for a company that does all
its business with the government (Wedtech,
to take an example), then clearly he's unworthy
of voting, right?
My cousin, the bug chaser, is an independent
agent. His check from the government is a
mutual exchange -- both benefit equally -- and
he could sell his time to Georgia-Pacific if he
So the gummint is as much a dependent of
Chris to protect the public's forests as he is
of the gummint.
It might be more cogent to make the #2
argument to real dependents of the
government -- people on welfare, who are
not in a relation of mutual benefit. But than
you'd have to class them with students
receiving government stipends.
#2 contradicts any principles of equality and
would be unmanageable even if i didn't.
We are Created Equal...we don't stay that way.
Jeff, good idea, but how do we stop Democrats from registering as Republicans?
Hey man, #2 sounds cool - let's count how many voters we can remove from the rolls:
1. Everyone who works for the defense industry.
2. Pretty much anyone who works in the healthcare industry (see Medicare & Medicaid).
3. Pretty much anyone over age 65 (see Social Security).
4. Anyone who works in certain sectors of the finance & banking industry (see U.S. Treasuries)
5. Many (most?) farmers (see farm subsides, subsidized water projects, etc.).
6. People working for certain ranches, mines, and timber companies (see use of federal lands at below market rates).
6. People working for religious institutions and other charitable organizations (see tax deductibility of charitable donations).
And presuming the granting of monopolistic rights by the federal government is roughly equivalent to cash payments:
7. Anyone working in a "wireless" industry (TV, radio, cellular phone service, etc.)
8. Anyone working in GPS related industries.
9. Anyone who relies on patents or copyrights to make a living (the film, publishing, software, pharmaceutical, etc. industries)
Of course, there will be -some- people who retain the right to vote, such as:
1. Most employees of state & local government (Those working for agencies administering Medicaid and other federal programs wouldn't be allowed to vote, but DMV workers, road builders, etc. could vote).
2. Public school teachers & professors.
3. People who primarily work for and/or with foreign governments and corporations.
there is some validity to your suggestion that Professors not be allowed to vote.
The idea might have some merit if those who want to restrict the franchise volunteered to give it up themselves.
Didn't think so.
That kind of choice is the point. You can either choose to vote or to suckle at the public teat, but not both.
I will concede that the Framers did not intend a universal franchise...but now that we have one, there isn't any person or group of persons I would trust to restrict it, even if it was by constitutional amendment and only DQ'd drugged out prostitutes with 14 kids and 12 abortions.