I happen to be old school on the issue of voting. I do not believe that you ought to be able to vote without property or paying taxes. No skin in the game? No vote for you.
So I'm naturally troubled by this bill that would allow 16 and 17 year olds to pre-register to vote.
Assembly bill 1819 allows a young person to complete the same registration form as any other person. Once the voter is 18, his or her registration is activated and a sample ballot and other election materials are mailed for the first election in which he or she would be eligible to vote.Many sixteen and seventeen year olds haven't paid taxes, haven't had jobs, and haven't studied any of the issues in any seriousness. So yes, they shouldn't be pre-registering to vote.
Republicans oppose the bill since younger people are generally more liberal and tend to lean democratic, said Professor Jack Pitney at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California.
Looks like the politicians are just look for another hack job for one of their constituents. It ain't cheap to mail "sample" ballot after all.
9 comments:
"I happen to be old school on the issue of voting."
No, you happen to be anti-Constitution on the issue of voting.
But I've got a quick question too. I got my first real job when I was 13, and while I couldn't file my own tax return, taxes were paid out of the money I made. Should I have been able to vote ever since then?
There is nothing conservative about the Independent. It is reactionary, pure and simple. This piece is proof of that.
Many old people are senile, have diminished mental faculties, and give me candies that vaguely smell and taste of mentholated cigarettes.
We still let them vote.
What's the word for rule by the best-looking?
Claremontliberal,
There's nothing constitutional about voting "rights" that enable the creation of a welfare state that robs the productive to subsidize the lazy.
But onto your point about paying taxes, if you were paying them for the creation of your property, you should be able to vote. As far as I'm concerned, anyone that receives a subsidy or a welfare check ought to have their voting rights taken away.
Richard,
This isn't the Claremont Independent. It's wholly unaffiliated and this isn't a "piece". It's a blog post.
CitizenX,
You try taking away voting rights from old people. They freak out when you try to take away their licenses.
Additionally, Charles, it's just pre-registering to vote. It's not as if they are able to vote at the age of 16 or 17, just when they turn 18. And anyways, no one is forcing them to do it, and even though teens more likely than not identify with their parents on the issue of party (I don't know how much credibility you can put into the idea that party affiliation is based on age...it's typically more how you're family is, party-wise.
I don't see the point...if you want to pre-register, why not? Same result as registering right when you turn 18...
Charles,
"if you were paying them for the creation of your property, you should be able to vote. As far as I'm concerned, anyone that receives a subsidy or a welfare check ought to have their voting rights taken away."
What about people who are living on disability checks? Surely you wouldn't be so callous as to suggest that the government is "subsidizing the lazy" when they aide those who are physically unable to work for a paycheck? Yet they don't pay taxes and don't have any "skin in the game" as you put it.
The government does far more than take taxes and create property for its citizens to own. Suggesting that you need to have capital that you earned going into the government in order to have a stake in controlling the government is laughable. What you're suggesting is nothing more than a watered down version of a plutocracy. Regardless of whether you pay taxes or not, every citizen is directly affected by the actions of the government.
The government has the authority to draft any citizen with an act of Congress. That's enough "skin in the game" for me.
Richard nails it!
Plus, these kids will largely have part- or full-time jobs, unless their parents have a substantial amount of skin in the game and will pay 7-9% of their income to a system that will never give them anything back. Unless of course their parents have a lot more skin in the game. Then they can play xbox all summer long.
Credit arch-Republican Pitney for being fair in his commentary. The Republicans are simply against this bill because it will hurt them in elections.
Why don't we just get rid of elections entirely and have government policies auctioned off to the highest bidder?
Then your political influence would be directly proportional to your amount of "skin in the game". It would be much more transparent and allocatively efficient than trying to rig elections in favor of the rich.
I'm sure these auctions would make even better television than our current system too.
Congratulations: you have discovered that a libertarian system of inalienable property rights is incompatible with democracy. When are we going to see you seriously advocate the disenfranchisement of the "thieving" wellfare-receiving poor?
-----
A much better idea is to base the number of votes a man gets on the length of his penis--this worked excellently throughout pre-history.
Post a Comment