Question: Should a mentally retarded person have the right to vote?

[lx43]

The reason i ask this is a guy I know who is mentally handicap has the mind of a child, he can't own propery, he can't sign contracts, yet he can vote in elections and help determine the outcome of a race.

This doesn't seem logical to me that mentally retarded people can vote if they are 18 years of age.

Any thoughts?

[Dionysus]

Most people are mentally retarded. Therefore, let this poor guy vote! Maybe he can tell when people are lying or something.

[Original_Intent]

The Law says that there should be universal suffrage - even children. The reason is that the laws should keep the government from being able to meddle in private afaris anyway, meaning that who you choose as your leaders is largely a formality if they are properly bound down by the law as to what they can and cannot do.

The other point is, any cutoff by age, intellect, gender, race etc is going to be at the whim or discretion of those who can vote. No one inherently has the right to deny someone else the ability to vote.

[lx43]

Most people are mentally retarded. Therefore, let this poor guy vote! Maybe he can tell when people are lying or something.

Yeah thats true. lol Look at what we have gotten in the past 100 years SS, medicare, medicaid, etc.

[lx43]

The Law says that there should be universal suffrage - even children. The reason is that the laws should keep the government from being able to meddle in private afaris anyway, meaning that who you choose as your leaders is largely a formality if they are properly bound down by the law as to what they can and cannot do.

The other point is, any cutoff by age, intellect, gender, race etc is going to be at the whim or discretion of those who can vote. No one inherently has the right to deny someone else the ability to vote.

So in other words you think children should also be able to vote?

[Andrew-Austin]

Their vote won't be any dumber than a regular persons, besides voting if pointless.

[jmdrake]

If this guy can be president then why can't he vote?

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2250194/george-w-bush-main_Full.jpg

[Endgame]

If that retarded person can meet certain standards, then sure.

Universal suffrage is a big problem with our whole system. There should be some kind of filter to keep illiterate cattle who don't know anything about anything from exerting political power over everyone else and being exploited by demagogues.

I think voting should require a test of basic literacy, logic and maybe a little about US history and civics if that part of the test could be administered in a politically neutral matter.

YouTube - Rush Limbaugh - "Obama Money" Detroit Ladies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlKUZ5tgK1E)

I don't know how anyone could listen to something like this and think universal suffrage is a good idea.

[sofia]

Karl Marx was in favor of universal suffrage because he knew that dummies and lowlives could be manipulated into voting themselves into socialist slavery.

The best way to prevent democratic government is to limit who can and cant vote. Age, property...I would even institute an IQ test and civics exam. Bottom third should not be allowed to vote.

Voting is not an "inalienable right"...it's a privilege. It is sheer folly to allow idiots to take away your liberty "democratically"

[Andrew-Austin]

I think voting should require a test of basic literacy, logic and maybe a little about US history and civics if that part of the test could be administered in a politically neutral matter.


Are you kidding me? Of course it couldn't.

I can imagine the first history question, "did FDR save everyone's butt from the the great depression that was caused by the instability of the free market?"

[awake]

Majority rule is collective mental and moral retardation... so sure.

[jmdrake]

:rolleyes:

IQ test written by powers that be for voting.

Question 1: Do you think that the federal reserve is a good idea?
_ Yes -> You pass and get to vote.
_ No -> You are retarded and can't vote.

I don't know why anyone would be dumb enough to fall for such a scheme. Sofia, have you looked up the term "grandfather clause" yet? :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

If that retarded person can meet certain standards, then sure.

Universal suffrage is a big problem with our whole system. There should be some kind of filter to keep illiterate cattle who don't know anything about anything from exerting political power over everyone else and being exploited by demagogues.

I think voting should require a test of basic literacy, logic and maybe a little about US history and civics if that part of the test could be administered in a politically neutral matter.

YouTube - Rush Limbaugh - "Obama Money" Detroit Ladies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlKUZ5tgK1E)

I don't know how anyone could listen to something like this and think universal suffrage is a good idea.

I don't know how anyone who takes Rush Limbaugh seriously could call anyone else retarded.

[Endgame]

Are you kidding me? Of course it couldn't.

I can imagine the first history question, "did FDR save everyone's butt from the the great depression that was caused by the instability of the free market?"

It wouldn't be impossible. Multiple choice factual questions like "who was the first president" or "what is the text of the fourth amendment of the bill of rights" don't require any analysis that could leave room for biased answers.

Remember this would be instituted under a very different government than the one we have now.

[Endgame]

I don't know how anyone who takes Rush Limbaugh seriously could call anyone else retarded.

I don't listen Limbaugh, but this was a good source for the recording I was referring to. You obviously didn't even click.

[Andrew-Austin]

It wouldn't be impossible. Multiple choice factual questions like "who was the first president" or "what is the text of the fourth amendment of the bill of rights" don't require any analysis that could leave room for biased answers.


Ruling out the possibility that you or me would be the ones writing the legislation and tests, I was pondering the practicality of expecting the politicians of today's caliber to pull this off in an acceptable manner.



Remember this would be instituted under a very different government than the one we have now.

Oh I see, so we're talking about a la la land hypothetical state, a "oh quick take a picture before the government evolves in to a dysfunctional oligarchy" constitutional minarchy.

[jmdrake]

I don't listen Limbaugh, but this was a good source for the recording I was referring to. You obviously didn't even click.

Let me guess. Some mindless Obama supporters mindlessly shouting out how much they loved him? Did I get it right? :rolleyes: Of course Limbaugh will only point at "mindless" Obama supporters and will never make fun of "mindless" Bush supporters. It's always the other guys supporter that's "mindless". You can always cut and splice together enough video / audio to make the other side look bad. Some called us "Paultards" if you recall.

[Endgame]

Ruling out the possibility that you or me would be the ones writing the legislation and tests, I was pondering the practicality of expecting the politicians of today's caliber to pull this off in an acceptable manner.



Oh I see, so we're talking about a la la land hypothetical state, a "oh quick take a picture before the government evolves in to a dysfunctional oligarchy" constitutional minarchy.

Of course what I'm talking about is hypothetical. I suppose you've got absolutely no preferences as to how the world around you should be? I'm not sure why you're posting on this forum then.

[jmdrake]

It wouldn't be impossible. Multiple choice factual questions like "who was the first president" or "what is the text of the fourth amendment of the bill of rights" don't require any analysis that could leave room for biased answers.

Remember this would be instituted under a very different government than the one we have now.

ROTFLMAO. Yeah right. :rolleyes: We get a perfect non corrupt government that will then restrict voting rights to perpetuate itself in power. Corrupt governments could never come up with such an idea. (When you have time. Look up the term "grandfather clause").

[Akus]

The reason i ask this is a guy I know who is mentally handicap has the mind of a child, he can't own propery, he can't sign contracts, yet he can vote in elections and help determine the outcome of a race.

This doesn't seem logical to me that mentally retarded people can vote if they are 18 years of age.

Any thoughts?

I thought mentally retarded people already vote. Just look whom we got as a President

[jmdrake]

Of course what I'm talking about is hypothetical. I suppose you've got absolutely no preferences as to how the world around you should be? I'm not sure why you're posting on this forum then.

Speaking only for myself I act from the belief that the government cannot be trusted. I don't trust it with the patriot act. I wouldn't trust it with some "voting test". My preference is to look at the world as it really is and try to limit the damage caused by the PTB. I'm sure in some theoretical world universal health-care works too.

[jmdrake]

I thought mentally retarded people already vote. Just look whom we got as a President

True. And look at the guy we got before that...and the guy before that...and....

[ClayTrainor]

Democracy is pure fail... let whoever you want scratch names and rules on paper, it won't help anything or anyone. The majority of your voters put more thought into American Idol than their electorate. What do you have to lose? :p

[Endgame]

Speaking only for myself I act from the belief that the government cannot be trusted. I don't trust it with the patriot act. I wouldn't trust it with some "voting test". My preference is to look at the world as it really is and try to limit the damage caused by the PTB. I'm sure in some theoretical world universal health-care works too.

Then I take it you're against the electoral system entirely. Fair enough. I don't have much hope for it myself.

Especially when every illiterate moron out there is allowed to vote.

[jmdrake]

Then I take it you're against the electoral system entirely. Fair enough. I don't have much hope for it myself.

Especially when every illiterate moron out there is allowed to vote.

:rolleyes: If you got that from what I said then I question your literacy. I don't trust the government. The ballot is one check (albeit a weak one) on their power. The 2nd amendment is a bigger check. Are you going to let the government have a literacy veto over that too?

[Dianne]

Should a mentally retarded child have the right to be vote? They should be allowed to vote, as there are many forms of retardation; that might not effect their capacity to know right or wrong, etc.

Should mentally retarded people serve in the Congress, the White House? That's a different story.. Look at George Bush, strategery... I'm the decider... Barack Obama.. I've campaigned in 57 states.. and have two more to go... Nancy Pelosi... Are you serious? when someone asks her about the constitution; something she has never read or knows nothing about.

Mentally handicapped peeps should be allowed to vote... mentally handicapped peeps like Bush, Obama and Pelosi should absolutely not be allowed to serve as lawmakers of this country.

[jmdrake]

should a mentally retarded child have the right to be vote? They should be allowed to vote, as there are many forms of retardation; that might not effect their capacity to know right or wrong, etc.

Should mentally retarded people serve in the congress, the white house? That's a different story.. Look at george bush, strategery... I'm the decider... Barack obama.. I've campaigned in 57 states.. And have two more to go... Nancy pelosi... Are you serious? When someone asks her about the constitution; something she has never read or knows nothing about.

Mentally handicapped peeps should be allowed to vote... Mentally handicapped peeps like bush, obama and pelosi should absolutely not be allowed to serve as lawmakers of this country.

+1776 * mc^2

[pcosmar]

What is mentally handicapped?
Who decides?

How many political dissidents have been locked up for "mental Illness" ?

Answers please.

[Dieseler]

We may be better off to only let retarded people to vote.
At least then we would have some random chance of something good happening.
I have met some really well put together people who were considered mentally handicapped by the way.

[newbitech]

ask the mentally retarded person if he should have the right to vote.

[Dieseler]

I thought you all knew that I am mentally retarded a lot.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes. I also believe that felon's should be able to vote. However, if I got my way, none of us would vote, because there would be no democratic process. Our "vote" would be our consent of everything; voluntaryism (An-Cap). Cheers. It's time to maximize liberty.

[haaaylee]

you get the government you deserve,

if there are enough mentally retarded people to make a difference & they lead us towards, i dunno, socialism. then that is what we get. they are humans & adults as well & to say they can't vote because you don't seem to view them as smart as you would mean that anyone else who isn't as "smart" as you can't vote either.

[RideTheDirt]

only if he is smarter than Bush

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/9george-bush.jpg

so yeah anyone should be eligible.(you basically just need a pulse that has beaten for 18 years)

[Ethek]

Everything should be much less democratic, far more limited federally and much more republic oriented. I'll pump www.thirty-thousand.org here again. I like it. Isulate everyone wanting to be free from the herd. It would also need state legislatures that were much more protective of 10th amendment abilities. If people are going to vote themselves into a box with stupid, ideally they shouldnt take any other states down with them.

Free and open societies would be othe only ones able to support a workable society before long.

[Mandrik]

If you can have your wealth stolen from you through taxes, and especially property taxes, than you damn well better be able to vote. I don't care what your mental condition is.

[misterx]

My IQ is more standard deviations above the average than the average is above mentally retarded. So relatively speaking, most people are mentally retarded in my book. I don't think any of these people have the capacity to make good judgments when voting. It's not much different than flipping a coin. Some will make the right choice, but not for the right reasons.

Most people don't know it, but originally only aristocrats were allowed to vote. If that had never changed, I do not think we would be in the mess we are in today.

[Icymudpuppy]

The master of my Union Forklift Drivers Local 451 told me to vote for all the people on this list. I never heard of any of them, but if he says so, he must know what he's talking about.

[tpreitzel]

If a woman has a right to vote so should a mentally retarded person. ;)

[South Park Fan]

As long as we have the opressive institution we call the state, it seems like the best way to choose rulers would be through random lottery. That way, it minimizes the tendency of bad people gravitating towards position of power and the ability of rulers to pander to the people.

[WarDog]

All you have to do is look at the past and tell me if the voters weren't retarded. What does it matter the votes are rigged anyway

[LibertyEagle]

Personally, I do not believe that someone should be able to vote who is currently feeding at the government trough. ie. they should not be able to vote for more government largess.

[lx43]

Personally, I do not believe that someone should be able to vote who is currently feeding at the government trough. ie. they should not be able to vote for more government largess.

You know I agree with this 100%. Any person who recieved any funds from the govt should not be able to vote period.

Here is a quote I heard recently: half the population works for a living while the other half votes for a living.

[erowe1]

Nobody should have a right to vote. Period. You don't have a right to steal, so you also don't have a right to delegate the right to steal to someone else using a vote. Democracy is immoral. There's no getting around that.

So no, a mentally retarded person should have the same right to vote as everyone else, which is none at all.

And if we're going to let some people vote and note others, then the ones whose votes we really need to worry about are the smart people, the ones who think they know what's best for us better than we do. If we're going to use an IQ test to exclude some people from voting, then the cut off should be about 130, and everyone above that can't vote. Nor should anyone with a Masters degree or higher. I'm not saying I advocate discriminating voting rights this way. But if you're going to do it, I'd exclude smart people before retarded ones.

[Arklatex]

In my quick assessment, I'd say yes they should be able to cast a vote.


how would you like it if the GOP all of a sudden called you retarded and got a doctor to say so, would you want your right to vote to be taken away? No you wouldn't.

[jmdrake]

Personally, I do not believe that someone should be able to vote who is currently feeding at the government trough. ie. they should not be able to vote for more government largess.

Does that include all politicians, government employees, military personnel, private government contractors etc?

[LibertyEagle]

Does that include all politicians, government employees, military personnel, private government contractors etc?

Yes.

[catdd]

I'd say plenty of them have already been voting judging by the likes of Pelosi and Barney Frank.

[jmdrake]

Yes.

Well you just knocked out one of the biggest block of Ron Paul donors from voting. :rolleyes: Also I think those likely to face being sent to war should have a vote on who gets to make that decision.

[Working Poor]

I think if a mentally retarded person wants to vote the should be allowed to do so. Mentally retarded people are not stupid they just seem different. Unfortunately most of them get put on lots of meds to control their behavior and it makes them feel sick and seem out of it.

Many of them live on their own. I used to work with a group of individuals. The way we measure intelligence is wrong and is prejudice. Retarded people are different and the general population does not understand them some are even afraid of them. I have often wondered if vaccine plays a role in their disability.

Many retarded adults work and earn a living and have very productive lives. So don't put them all in the dependent of the government bag.

[brandon]

Personally, I think it should be up to your local municipality. I also think the only popular vote elections should be done at a local level.

Election of all federal and state offices should be done by electors selected by the people at the local level.

Problem solved.

Oh yea, and in my community...no way in hell would I support giving suffrage to retards. I say only property owners that made taxable income in the previous year should have suffrage.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I've worked with some low functioning ones and I guarantee that none of them understood the concepts of what government or voting were. They would have no concept of who or what they were voting for.

I've also worked with a mildly retarded girl that was high functioning and I suspect did understand these things.

-t

[Working Poor]

Oh yea, and in my community...no way in hell would I support giving suffrage to retards.

Brandon I think I want to kick your butt...

[brandon]

Brandon I think I want to kick your butt...

hah sorry if that came off the wrong way. I have nothing against mentally retarded people... I just don't want them voting. You need to be pretty smart to wrap your head around all the issues of the day.

[LibertyEagle]

Well you just knocked out one of the biggest block of Ron Paul donors from voting. :rolleyes:
So what? What does that have to do with the price in tea in China? :rolleyes: right back at ya.


Also I think those likely to face being sent to war should have a vote on who gets to make that decision.
Being "likely to face" does in no way mean they are living off the government. But, you're right that someone drafted, should be in a different category.

[djinwa]

Well, we are electing officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution. So it seems to me that voters should demonstrate some knowledge of such. And of course, so should the candidates. Until then, it is hopeless. This article would be a great manual for study by voters to qualify. Perhaps the next time we start over, we can include voter proficiency in the Constitution – otherwise it is useless.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3566517.html


The U.S. Constitution is fundamentally a rulebook for government. Its guiding principle is the idea that the state is a source of corruptive power and ultimate tyranny. Washington's responsibilities were confined to a select few enumerated powers, involving mainly protecting the national security of the nation and preserving public safety. In the realm of domestic affairs, the Founders foresaw limited federal interference in the daily lives of its citizens. The minimal government involvement in the domestic economy that was envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution would be financed and delivered at the state and local levels.

The enumerated powers of the federal government to spend money are defined in the Constitution under Article I, Section 8. These powers include the right to "establish Post Offices and post roads; raise and support Armies; provide and maintain a Navy; declare War;" and other activities related mostly to national defense.

No matter how long one searches through the Constitution, it is impossible to find any language that authorizes at least 90 percent of the civilian programs that Congress crams into the federal budget today.

There is no granting of authority for the federal government to pay money to farmers, run the health-care industry, impose wage and price controls, give welfare to the poor and unemployed, provide job training, subsidize electricity and telephone service, lend money to businesses or foreign governments, or build parking garages, tennis courts, and swimming pools. The Founders did not create a Department of Commerce, a Department of Education, or a Department of Housing and Urban Development. This was no oversight: they simply never imagined that government would take an active role in such activities.

Recognizing the propensity of governments to expand, and, as Jefferson put it, for "liberty to yield," the Framers added the Bill of Rights as an extra layer of protection of the rights of individuals against the state. The Bill of Rights was inserted to ensure that government would never grow so large that it could trample on the individual and economic liberties of American citizens. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states the Founders `intentions quite clearly and unambiguously: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Such plain language would not seem to be easy to misinterpret. Put simply, if the Constitution doesn't specifically permit the federal government to do something, then it doesn't have the right to do it.



Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare of the United States."

Since the 1930s, the courts have interpreted this phrase to mean that Congress may spend money for any purpose, whether an enumerated power of government or not, as long as legislators deem it to be in "the general welfare of the United States." That is, this innocent clause has become the equivalent of carte blanche spending authority for Congress.

This was exactly the opposite of what the drafters of the Constitution intended. It is almost beyond dispute that the Founders meant the general-welfare clause to be a limiting provision on government. They meant that the government's spending and taxing powers could only be used for purposes that were in the general welfare of the nation and its citizens collectively, not of particular groups of citizens--farmers, students, welfare recipients, minorities, the disabled. Jefferson was forever concerned that the general- welfare clause might be perverted. To clarify its meaning, in 1798 he wrote: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

In fact, when the early federalists began to argue that the general-welfare clause gave Congress a generalized spending authority, they were forcefully rebuked. "Can it be conceived that the great and wise men who devised our Constitution," asked South Carolina Senator William Drayton in 1828, "should have failed so egregiously as to grant a power which rendered restriction upon power practically unavailing?" And then he asked the question that is really the essence of the issue: "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"

Exactly.

[RM918]

Absolutely yes. If we could stop people from voting just due to a lack of understanding of what they were voting for, elections would be severely downsized.

[BlackTerrel]

If this guy can be president then why can't he vote?

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2250194/george-w-bush-main_Full.jpg

Dude you stole my joke. I thought that is what this thread was going to be about.