2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI am appalled. I was just told that voting is a privilege, not a right.
Right here on DU. This mentality explains the erosion of voting rights. Some here only want those that vote like them to be able to vote at all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1522587
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)accept slavery knowing full well that they would be the slaves. They're like people who have been in prison for so long they become institutionalized and can't function any other way.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)We have been overrun by libertarians and "screw you, I've got mine" types.
dchill
(38,594 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)He maintained that there was nothing in the Constitution about a "right to vote", even though there are several amendments dealing specifically with voting rights.
djean111
(14,255 posts)for Hillary. I think, this time, they will get their wish - big time.
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)'misread' the comment and took it out of context
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)H2O Man
(73,668 posts)Voting is both a right and responsibility.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)1984 173,995 92,655 53.3%
1988 181,956 91,587 50.3%
1992 189,493 104,600 55.2%
1996 196,789 96,390 49.0%
2000 209,787 105,594 50.3%
2004 219,553 122,349 55.7%
2008 229,945 131,407 57.1%
2012 235,248 129,235 54.9%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
H2O Man
(73,668 posts)That's shameful.
randr
(12,418 posts)should carry a fine if not exercised.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)yardwork
(61,752 posts)H2O Man
(73,668 posts)I've gone back and re-read it twice. I am unable to identify in way in which the OP could be viewed as misrepresenting what that post said.
yardwork
(61,752 posts)H2O Man
(73,668 posts)agree that the post identifies voting as a privilege. That is distinct from a right. Words have meanings. The OP is 100% correct.
MH1
(17,620 posts)* theoretically, at least.
Does that make it better?
I agree with several others on this thread, it can be a right and still be a privilege.
I would also argue that despite theory, and what SHOULD be, it is a "right" that too often is not treated as such. There are many who SHOULD have the right to vote, but in various ways are blocked from voting. The fact that I, personally, am not in that situation - that no one blocks my right to vote - to me is a PRIVILEGE. And I show my appreciation by exercising my right at every election. (For the last couple decades or so, anyway. I was once an opinionated young person who didn't always bother to show up, like many of my peers. On the other hand, the system doesn't make it easy on someone with a less than great job, and it used to be a lot harder to get factual info about the candidates to make an informed decision.)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)In fact, I often feel I would like the right to live somewhere else.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Hard to believe some can't tell the difference. Actually, it is frightening.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)yardwork
(61,752 posts)You are changing the meaning of the post to fit your agenda.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Response to Live and Learn (Original post)
Post removed
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)back to the days of only landowners having a right to vote.........well money does rule these days so perhaps in way we are already there.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)That's why there's closed primaries in most states.
However, the poster you are referring to didn't make that distinction.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)They don't have that privilege.
Everyone has the right to vote in the general, though.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Every US citizen has a right to vote in the general election. It's in the Constitution and it's many amendments.
However, the DNC and RNC are not public organizations. Voting on who will represent either party in the general election is not a right, it's a privilege based on the rules of those two private organizations. There is no provision for political parties in the Constitution or it's amendments.
Note, I am NOT defending what the poster you are talking about said. They did not make the distinction. I am making that distinction.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Sheesh.
unc70
(6,125 posts)While I think it should be a right, the Constitution does not grant that right. It only specifies reasons that may not preclude voting. There are many state restrictions on voting that are regularly upheld - convicted felons, voter registrations, etc.
BTW Nothing in the Constitution precludes a State from allowing non-citizens to vote in Federal elections.
Not what I prefer, but the way it is.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Personally I don't remember parties even being mentioned.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)around here??
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Which Clinton voters, out of the millions who have voted for her. 2.5 million more than the Sanders voters, actually. Are they all "freepers?"
I doubt that very much.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Will destroy us all.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)That they can vote or not, as they wish. Like they have the privilege of choosing whether or not to vote. In some countries, voting is mandatory, but not here. We have the privilege of choosing.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)But it isn't what you're claiming in your OP. If your complaint is that the poster is making fun of young people, then make an OP about that. You claimed the poster is saying that voting is a privilege that can be taken away, and it appears clear based on the context of that thread that your claim is not accurate.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Look up the meanings. The poster claimed it was a privilege which means it is not a right.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)"Not a right" did not appear in the referenced post.
We do indeed have the privilege of bestowing our votes on whomever we please, for whatever reasons we please, including no reason at all--but some primaries are not open to us all.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Granted, some peoples rights have been taken away but that doesn't make it correct.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If the parties wanted to say only people named Steve get to vote in the primaries, they can do that.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)That's ridiculous.
The parties can only set rules for such things as party membership and registration date. They cannot prevent any otherwise qualified voter from voting. And in some states, the parties don't even get to decide those things. In Arkansas, for example, all qualified voters can vote in either primary.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)For that matter most parties (that is, the proliferation of tiny ones) just hold a conference call.
The Democratic and Republican parties choose to use the state election apparatus for their primaries (which comes with some state oversight), but they aren't required to. And the oversight required for caucuses is tiny; in most states you just have to tell the bureau of elections when it's going to happen.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously?
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)I think that's, in theory, probably true. Would likely fall under free speech.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So you'd have to do a caucus or run your own primary, but that's what most of the really small parties do anyways.
Steve stole my donut.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)At least for caucuses anyhow, not sure how the fuck it's done for primaries (I think state funds some of that so there might be some hoops you got to get through).
Caucuses you just use a notebook.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)RIGHTS, dammit!!!!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)The Hillary supporters have drunk from the well of Authoritarianism and are intoxicated on the power it offers them*
*Illusion of power since they aren't getting shit, but they gain power for their favorite team.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)All eligible voters should pick someone they think best suited to fulfill the responsibilities of office.
WhiteTara
(29,730 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Not withstanding the idiocy of the late Justice Scalia, citizens have the right to vote. True, no one has to exercise it. So far, he's right. However, he never should have used the word privilege and that analogy of a parent paying for a child's cell phone is simply bizarre.
If the government imposed some kind of penalty for not voting, then it would be not a right but an obligation. If the situation is that some people may vote while others are barred from the polls, then it is a privilege.