Reasonable limitations on voting

[brianj]

With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has, rightly or wrongly, fought alongside the US in every war they have fought.
I would point out that when our sovereign land was invaded by an aggressor and our people oppressed by a fascist dictator, the US straddled the fence and left us to fight alone, despite the fact that we are supposed to be NATO allies.
I'm talking about the 1982 Falklands war.

With the one exception of Vietnam? I think I can recall another war where the UK didn't fight alongside the US.

And for the record, I'm disappointed the US didn't firmly and immediately support the UK after Argentina attempted to annex the Falklands.

I can't think of one.
We fought in Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia etc. Which war are you thinking of?

The one that was fought from 1775 to 1783.

And now I'm thinking of another war, fought 1812-1815.

[Robin Hood]

With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has, rightly or wrongly, fought alongside the US in every war they have fought.
I would point out that when our sovereign land was invaded by an aggressor and our people oppressed by a fascist dictator, the US straddled the fence and left us to fight alone, despite the fact that we are supposed to be NATO allies.
I'm talking about the 1982 Falklands war.

With the one exception of Vietnam? I think I can recall another war where the UK didn't fight alongside the US.

And for the record, I'm disappointed the US didn't firmly and immediately support the UK after Argentina attempted to annex the Falklands.

I can't think of one.
We fought in Korea, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia etc. Which war are you thinking of?

The one that was fought from 1775 to 1783.

And now I'm thinking of another war, fought 1812-1815.

The 1812 war was between the US and Canada/Great Britain. Doesn't count for the purposes of this conversation. Neither does the Treason War, especially as the US didn't exist at the time.

Equally I could ask where was the US when we were fighting terror? You know, before it became fashionable for you guys.
I'm thinking Palestine, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland.

[Ezra]

For me it's a matter of who would vote themselves higher pay more privileges.

So I would say no they don't get a vote if they are employed by government. It would mean that those who work for government would also be more oriented toward it being for service not profit.

As far as military fighting and dieing. I think would be much more unlikely since the budget would be balanced due to if it wasn't the top dogs assets being seized to make up the difference.

with all those other programs they wouldn't exist since there is a budget that would actually be followed.

It is a check and balance that would ensure the government stay small and in service to its people.

Unworkable.
For example, what about those who work for private companies which get government contracts? In effect, their salaries are paid by the taxpayer.

You can draw a line somewhere. But can you remind me where in the constitution it allows the government to hire companies to work?

I'm not familar with the US constitution. But I expect it doesn't say they can't.
Who would build the roads?

It does not grant that power. It grants it to the state or the people.

So it does say they cannot in the 10th amendment. They have ignored it.

[gardener4life]

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?

No I'm not saying that. I was giving a bit of history and explaining why it might have worked for them. I don't see it working now and honestly I believe it was fairly flawed back then as well. From what I understand, women and minorities couldn't own land.

I've been thinking this over. You need a fairly broad demographic in order to fairly limit voting without restricting it by race or gender, but merely limiting it to "adults" has proven to be problematic. 18 year olds are still quite foolish and it would be difficult to determine what the best age to begin allowing voting should be.

I don't agree with the idea of administering a test because I believe it's fairly difficult to gauge a person's level of responsibility through testing. There are some people, like my brother, who do terribly on tests but are actually quite intelligent. Additionally, book knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge (you wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had only read about the surgery from a book.)

After considering this, I've come up with an answer that I believe is the best possible solution for this highly difficult situation. I think that parents should be allowed to vote. Place a limitation on voting that only those who have cared for a child full time (which includes providing financial support for someone caring for a child) for at least five years can vote.

My reasoning is that no other demographic will be as motivated to make the best decision for our nation for now and for the future as will parents. No one can be discriminated against based on race, social status, or gender (though men may have a slight disadvantage). By requiring a person to care for a child at least five years, you've reduced the problem of age and a person most meet at least a minimal level of responsibility.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think that it's the best solution possible in this world.

So the childless couple, already deeply saddened that they are unable to have a child, have it rubbed in their faces every time an election comes around?

That's a lot less heartbreaking than the troubles irresponsible voting bring upon us. Since the limitation is caring for a child, not conceiving one, adoptive parents are just as eligible as natural parents. The couples who end up being barred from voting because they can't conceive a child and can't adopt a child will be relatively few.

There is no perfect system to determine who has the right to vote so I would ask, is that point serious enough to dismiss the whole idea? No matter what, some people are going to be excluded from voting, if just because they are too young. Will we allow anyone of any age the right to vote so we can spare their feelings? Probably not.

Nice comments. Let me add to that.

Why do we vote? We don't vote for people's feelings and to make them feel special. You helped identify that. Voting is a right to determine the future of the country. It's very simple. When you go to vote you are determining if your country has a future or not. And there are a lot of people who want evil things to be accepted. There are people who want kingships. There are people that want the country turned upside down rather than conform. There are people who haven't learned how to cooperate with others or how to avoid going out of boundaries to hurt others. There are also many that aren't responsible enough to see through the lies and corruption and understand who is doing good and who is doing bad. Heck, it's even hard to tell that once you are old too if you aren't reading the scriptures.

So you have to have some way of curbing those who don't have the values of promoting a healthy upcoming generation. If you let people that shouldn't vote, be voters. Your children and their children can have their future taken away. I'm dead serious on this. (It doesn't mean you should start a war over it, but you need clear perception on what's happening so you can make decisions that promote good.) So let's promote good in peaceful ways.

I do apologize but you won't be able to make everyone happy. Our responsibility is to make the righteous happy and the repentant. And to bring up a righteous next generation. To do that also we can't have good people and wicked people on equal standing. People won't choose good if they see wicked people get the same as good people. And wicked people will always end up with more when they are on 'supposed' equal footing with the good because they will always be cheating the system and trying to get things under the table while the others are unaware.

So I hope that helps you to think about things more simply. Instead of social caste system rules, we need more to think of what's a good fruit, and what's a bad fruit.

[brianj]

The 1812 war was between the US and Canada/Great Britain. Doesn't count for the purposes of this conversation. Neither does the Treason War, especially as the US didn't exist at the time.

Equally I could ask where was the US when we were fighting terror? You know, before it became fashionable for you guys.
I'm thinking Palestine, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland.

So... With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has fought with the US in every war for the last 200 years.

Treason War. I've never heard it called that. Is that what it's called in UK schools?

Let me remind you of the 241 US servicemen killed in Beirut on October 23, 1983. Northern Ireland and Cyprus were internal affairs, and we didn't send military forces to Israel but we did provide aid to the Israelis.

Come to think of it, we did participate in a few other responses to terrorism before 2001.

[Robin Hood]

The 1812 war was between the US and Canada/Great Britain. Doesn't count for the purposes of this conversation. Neither does the Treason War, especially as the US didn't exist at the time.

Equally I could ask where was the US when we were fighting terror? You know, before it became fashionable for you guys.
I'm thinking Palestine, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland.

So... With the exception of Vietnam, the UK has fought with the US in every war for the last 200 years.

Treason War. I've never heard it called that. Is that what it's called in UK schools?

Let me remind you of the 241 US servicemen killed in Beirut on October 23, 1983. Northern Ireland and Cyprus were internal affairs, and we didn't send military forces to Israel but we did provide aid to the Israelis.

Come to think of it, we did participate in a few other responses to terrorism before 2001.

Cyprus was not an internal affair.
Palestine was an international mandate.
The IRA received most of it's funding from the US, and the authorities did nothing about it.

[brianj]

Cyprus was not an internal affair.
Palestine was an international mandate.
The IRA received most of it's funding from the US, and the authorities did nothing about it.

In this case I'm not sure what events in Cyprus you are referring to. I thought you were getting at the unrest regarding independence.

I wasn't aware the IRA was funded mostly by the US. If so, then I'm really bothered by my government's inaction.

Palestine is mandated by the UN, but unfortunately it's treated as an Israeli issue.

[Robin Hood]

Treason War. I've never heard it called that. Is that what it's called in UK schools?

No, it's my name for it.
Some people over here (mostly social media types) refer to the 4th of July as "Treason Day". I think that's where I got it from.
It is usually referred to as "the American war of independence"; which I think you'll agree is a bit of a mouthful. Hence "treason war".

[brianj]

Treason War. I've never heard it called that. Is that what it's called in UK schools?

No, it's my name for it.
Some people over here (mostly social media types) refer to the 4th of July as "Treason Day". I think that's where I got it from.
It is usually referred to as "the American war of independence"; which I think you'll agree is a bit of a mouthful. Hence "treason war".

Civil War is much less of a mouthful than War of Northern Aggression, but this son of the South ain't gonna compromise.

[gkearney]

Treason War. I've never heard it called that. Is that what it's called in UK schools?

No, it's my name for it.
Some people over here (mostly social media types) refer to the 4th of July as "Treason Day". I think that's where I got it from.
It is usually referred to as "the American war of independence"; which I think you'll agree is a bit of a mouthful. Hence "treason war".

I had a great uncle who referred to it as “the recent unpleasantness with the colonies”.

Another ancestor of mine wrote in his journal at the time expulsion of the loyalists from New Jersey to Canada, that he would “rather live under one tyrant 3000 miles away than live under 3000 tyrants a mile away. “