What is the original voting block hoarding their voting rights (eg white male land owners) if not an elite few?
Look, obviously infants can’t vote, so you have a point that technically there needs to be a democratic way to decide who can and can’t vote based on maturity/age at least, but there’s no good argument for any further restrictions on adult residents subject to the law of their government. I don’t care if they’re not in military service, I don’t care if they’re bums on the street, I don’t care if they’re slaves, I don’t care if they’re serving life in prison - they’re citizens, they’re subject to the system, they deserve equal say in how the system works. Excessively legislating who can and can’t vote is just asking for “an elite few” to exploit it.
Like those hardworking slaves in the South! Wait they couldn’t vote, and a large chunk of the people who could vote (ironically leaching off the slaves hard work) had a vested interest in making sure it stayed that way. Do you see the problem?
Power begats power, and even with good intentions concentrating it historically will strip minorities of their rights, even after they’re no longer minorities, ironically leading to minority rule. Gerrymandering is essentially this same problem of voters (indirectly through their representatives) deciding how votes are counted. Whoever is in power now will change voting rights in their favor to keep it, it’s naive to think otherwise.
Technically a majority … 80 fucking years after the country was established. In fact, it wasn’t even a true majority per se as former confederated states weren’t even allowed their congressional representation back until they agreed to adopt the 14th amendment. Citizenship for citizenship. There was never a come-to-Jesus moment, they were tugged by the ear into giving African-Americans citizenship after failing to secede ironically because they feared the threat of losing slavery as an institution. Practically speaking, “who changed it who so slaves could vote” was the majority, but not the majority of voters, it was the majority of bullets and bayonets. Turns out when people don’t get representation legally, they’ll figure out another way to make their voice heard, eventually.
What you are saying exactly here is the majority of men and women only in the North got to decide the future for everyone in the south unless they signed up for something they didn’t want to sign up for. Is that right?
That’s sounds more democratic than a system where the majority of the adult population do something to contribute to the imporvement of their country and planet, then they get to vote.
You seem to be glossing over the fact that this “something they they didn’t want to sign up for” was literally the abolition of slavery. Slavery as in people are property, they have no rights, and to use your words, they were signed up for something they didn’t want to sign up for - for life.
But no, let’s mourn with those poor slaveowners, who were forced by the Yankees to give up their right to - checks notes - own people to regain their own voting rights after a failed secession over this same issue.
Why the fuck am I arguing the morality of slavery with you? Good luck raising the south or whatever. I know it’s tough these days making sure only good ol’ boys can vote
Actually what was happening is you said a system where even the majority vote for something is a bad system, the only possibility is everyone has to vote.
Then to prove your point you used an example where a minority changes the rules for everyone.
Lol it was just terrible a terrible argument because you proved my point but you are too far down the rabbit hole to admit you fucked up.
Let me say it slow: tolerance paradox. Intolerance can’t be tolerated. The right to deny another person’s rights isn’t a right, it’s oppression.
Early on I thought this might be good conversation. I offered slavery and the civil war as a counter point to illustrate why the whole “yesterday’s citizens decided who today’s were, and today’s citizens decide who tomorrow’s will be” idea is a faulty one, but you jumped right in the pig sty because apparently granting voting rights to freed slaves in the South was an anti-democratic move. That’s both immoral and illogical. So yeah, we’re done here. get blocked
What is the original voting block hoarding their voting rights (eg white male land owners) if not an elite few?
Look, obviously infants can’t vote, so you have a point that technically there needs to be a democratic way to decide who can and can’t vote based on maturity/age at least, but there’s no good argument for any further restrictions on adult residents subject to the law of their government. I don’t care if they’re not in military service, I don’t care if they’re bums on the street, I don’t care if they’re slaves, I don’t care if they’re serving life in prison - they’re citizens, they’re subject to the system, they deserve equal say in how the system works. Excessively legislating who can and can’t vote is just asking for “an elite few” to exploit it.
You could argue that people exploit the system when someone leaches off it when others do hard work.
At least it someone had to serve the betterment of their country for a while they aren’t just leaching.
Like those hardworking slaves in the South! Wait they couldn’t vote, and a large chunk of the people who could vote (ironically leaching off the slaves hard work) had a vested interest in making sure it stayed that way. Do you see the problem?
Power begats power, and even with good intentions concentrating it historically will strip minorities of their rights, even after they’re no longer minorities, ironically leading to minority rule. Gerrymandering is essentially this same problem of voters (indirectly through their representatives) deciding how votes are counted. Whoever is in power now will change voting rights in their favor to keep it, it’s naive to think otherwise.
I’m sorry who changed it so slaves could vote the majority of people or a minority of people?
Technically a majority … 80 fucking years after the country was established. In fact, it wasn’t even a true majority per se as former confederated states weren’t even allowed their congressional representation back until they agreed to adopt the 14th amendment. Citizenship for citizenship. There was never a come-to-Jesus moment, they were tugged by the ear into giving African-Americans citizenship after failing to secede ironically because they feared the threat of losing slavery as an institution. Practically speaking, “who changed it who so slaves could vote” was the majority, but not the majority of voters, it was the majority of bullets and bayonets. Turns out when people don’t get representation legally, they’ll figure out another way to make their voice heard, eventually.
What you are saying exactly here is the majority of men and women only in the North got to decide the future for everyone in the south unless they signed up for something they didn’t want to sign up for. Is that right?
That’s sounds more democratic than a system where the majority of the adult population do something to contribute to the imporvement of their country and planet, then they get to vote.
You seem to be glossing over the fact that this “something they they didn’t want to sign up for” was literally the abolition of slavery. Slavery as in people are property, they have no rights, and to use your words, they were signed up for something they didn’t want to sign up for - for life.
But no, let’s mourn with those poor slaveowners, who were forced by the Yankees to give up their right to - checks notes - own people to regain their own voting rights after a failed secession over this same issue.
Why the fuck am I arguing the morality of slavery with you? Good luck raising the south or whatever. I know it’s tough these days making sure only good ol’ boys can vote
Good strawman.
Actually what was happening is you said a system where even the majority vote for something is a bad system, the only possibility is everyone has to vote.
Then to prove your point you used an example where a minority changes the rules for everyone.
Lol it was just terrible a terrible argument because you proved my point but you are too far down the rabbit hole to admit you fucked up.
Let me say it slow: tolerance paradox. Intolerance can’t be tolerated. The right to deny another person’s rights isn’t a right, it’s oppression.
Early on I thought this might be good conversation. I offered slavery and the civil war as a counter point to illustrate why the whole “yesterday’s citizens decided who today’s were, and today’s citizens decide who tomorrow’s will be” idea is a faulty one, but you jumped right in the pig sty because apparently granting voting rights to freed slaves in the South was an anti-democratic move. That’s both immoral and illogical. So yeah, we’re done here. get blocked