Why should uneducated people be allowed to vote?

Why are americans allowed to express their thoughts?

same reason why other powers of the past are allowed to express their thought

because we have the bigger army to express it with

China has the biggest army, actually.

What if we do this? No intelligence test required, no barrier whatsoever to who can vote, you just have to write their name down yourself, no checkboxes. Spelling errors are discarded.

>we

I have a say in its government so naturally I'm a part of it, so are all the other citizens.

so "we"

You saying a women's studies graduate's opinion is worth more than that of a carpenter?

why are europeans allowed to exist?

most democracies have a public education system where you get at least a minimal civic education

trick question, they don't

only French, British, Italians, Germans, Serbs, etc.

The the more arbitrary restrictions you impose on voting the easier it is to corrupt the process and design it so only people who support you will be able to vote.

Does education even really make people better voters? Most people don't gain true political insight and wisdom from education but instead only use their education to better defend and reinforce the preconceived notions and ideologies they already have.

Why are State employees allowed to vote?

You vote with one hand over your heart and the other over your wallet, it´s quite simple.

In modern times, universal suffrage is applied under the assumption that the state, given powers by and unto its voters, provides the means to ensure that at least the majority of its citizens will not be uneducated. America, with its illegal aliens who will find some means or another to vote, provides these aliens with the same means.

how can illegal aliens vote? not american and genuinelly interested

they walk into the pollbooth and press some buttons or pull a lever

>with its illegal aliens who will find some means or another to vote,
surely do you have statistics on illegal votes, don't you user? you wouldn't just pull something out of you ass, right user?

I suppose there is a voter registry for citizens amirite

Because going to college doesn't mean you know anything about politics.

>true political insight and wisdom

No such thing exists, which is why it's necessary for everyone to be able to vote.

There is no reason illegal aliens shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Maybe you should improve immigration policy if you care so much about it.

They don't. None of the fags who bring this up as a talking point will ever prove it, because they're used to people just accepting their bullshit as gospel.

t. American

they would have to become citizens to vote
non citizens can´t vote

What's you point? Mine is that there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. I'm arguing for a change to the current system here.

so you´re proposing letting foreigners vote without a lawful naturalization process?

Yes, or provide an easier naturalization process by reforming immigration, as alluded to here

Not entirely true

Because the idea of democracy is that everyone is treated fairly. Actually, I never understood this concept in regard to capitalism - giving everyone an equal vote implies that everyone is equal, but that goes against capitalism's notion of some being clearly better off than others (i.e. not equal). Even if the idea is that "everyone CAN succeed", not everyone does, implying that everyone is NOT equal. So why does everyone get a vote?

sounds perfect desu
let business work together with political parties and move foreign wageslaves to your city
the free market will fix it

go protest businesses and advocate campaign finance reform
oh wait, you are advocating hating mexicans instead
i guess it makes sense to pick an easy, emotionally convenient target

>I have a say in it's government

user.. I..

Equal as humans =/= Equal in wealth.

Unless you think that the only thing matters in life is wealth, then there isn't a contradiction.

>implying politics makes sense
>implying some politicians aren't trying to restrict democracy
Trump proposed getting rid of some birthright citizenship, for example.

Only rich people should be allowed to vote.

Well in a capitalist system, having more wealth usually means you have access to better (more expensive) opportunities, and can afford to take risks (e.g. starting a business) since you have a safety net to fall back on. Poor people who have to work solidly just to put food on the table don't have time to pursue things like higher education.

Why is voting an automatic entitlement and not instead an entitlement with a non-discriminatory barrier?

Take higher education for instance - it is a right of everyone who wants to persue it (assuming western society). To go to university - anyone can apply with no discrimination - but you must first pass a test to prove yourself capable of entering.

Because education and intelligence aren't necessarily related.

Additionally one can argue "education" is just being indoctrinated by the government.

>dont want illegal immigrants
>Equate it to hating mexicans

Whats wrong with americans

Does this mean terrorists are right in bombing civilians of enemy countries which are democracies?

If you're an embedded part of that enterprise which is waging war then you are a legitimate enemy target too?

Probably, yes.

no dude nothing against mexicans, I´m a spic
But does Mexico allows off the boat foreigners to vote or what

to provide an incentive to educate them

>Why are State employees allowed to vote?

Why would they not be?

>implying one enters university with no discrimination
Also, the results of voting are much more likely to be essential to your life that what knowledge you can gain from uni. I mean, this is literally what determines the people who make the laws, who declare war and levy taxes.

That's true, but it's less true today than it was even 20 years ago.

What's your point? That as humanity progresses, we should restrict voting rights to those who have had higher education?

So? Rich people have better lives. No shit. If they didn't, no one would bother trying to become rich. That has nothing to do with equality under the law.

Yes on both counts, it just makes filthy neo-liberals Westerners angry that they're finally getting their righteous comeuppance for causing instability and coups for decades.

>implying Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't legitimate targets

So, to the guy who said
>Equal as humans =/= Equal in wealth.
I simply made a point that having more wealth usually means you're better educated and generally better off in life.

And fuck you , not him but stop putting words in peoples mouths. We're just making points, nobody said anything about restricting voting rights. If you want to make strawmen and argue over them you can fuck off to /pol/.

My point was that there will come a time when very *very* few people will live from hand to mouth.

This isn't the 19th century.

>We're just making points, nobody said anything about restricting voting rights. If you want to make strawmen and argue over them you can fuck off to /pol/.
Sorry, it sounded like was implying that since the whole conversation started with >giving everyone an equal vote implies that everyone is equal, but that goes against capitalism's notion of some being clearly better off than others
then
>Equal as humans =/= Equal in wealth.
then
>Poor people who have to work solidly just to put food on the table don't have time to pursue things like higher education.
then
I know, but how does that concern voting rights? This whole conversation is within the framework of how a democracy with universal suffrage conflicts with capitalism.

>I know, but how does that concern voting rights? This whole conversation is within the framework of how a democracy with universal suffrage conflicts with capitalism.

Your argument was that it conflicts with capitalism because some people are rich and some poor you moron.

And I'm telling you that it doesn't, because even a Chinese farmer is richer today than he was 20 years ago.

First post, best post.

No, the argument is that capitalism is fundamentally based on disparity between individuals. Whether or not the disparity actually occurs is irrelevant; it is still allowed to occur, while in a democracy with universal suffrage, there is no bias payed to one vote over another.

>No, the argument is that capitalism is fundamentally based on disparity between individuals.

Yes, disparity in *wealth*, not rights. You can't murder people just because you're rich.

No, and neither do they allow rampant violation of their laws and borders by anybody who can make the trip.

Of course, if America tries to enforce the rule of law and the integrity of its borders, it's racism.

>You can't murder people just because you're rich.
Not officially, but rich people can hire better lawyers or bribe corrupt officials. In an election, they can contribute much more money than the poor can to any candidate. They have many more resources at their disposal. They have, by default, more political power.

Meanwhile, the poor are vastly more people and their vote counts as much as the rich, as you said yourself.

So the poor can vote in people who will shaft the rich if they so choose.

>and their vote counts as much as the rich, as you said yourself
In a democracy with universal suffrage, it should. That's not the way the US works, however.

>So the poor can vote in people who will shaft the rich if they so choose.
And why haven't they? Because the rich control the political narrative. Also, all candidates running are rich. There is not a single member of Congress, for example, that doesn't make at least 100k a year.

They shouldn't.

>at least 100k a year.
*golfclap*

You overestimate the power of people's ability to control any narrative.

That have no sence, who cares if you have more resources, the poors have more political power because they are more in a system where 1 person = 1 vote, the history have a lot of examples of people who won elecctions against the "rich people" using the system, no a
>mhuuuuuuu popular revolution!

what? It's true. $174,000, to be exact

The ideology of capitalism opposes democracy as it posits that people may be unequal, and that's okay. You claim that it merely posits wealth inequality, not inequality in rights (specifically the right to vote within a democracy). I proposed that the rich, the beneficiaries of inequality within capitalism, hold unequal political power even within a democracy. You claim otherwise, that though the rich individually hold more power, the poor are collectively more powerful.

I still hold that the rich control political narrative, and that many powerful political officials, like Congressmen, are rich.

Obviously, they don't control people's every action. But nationalism, capitalism, welfare, and other popular ideas are encouraged by the rich because they benefit from them.

And yet, it continues to benefit the rich.

>the poors have more political power because they are more in a system where 1 person = 1 vote
But they vote in accordance with what the rich encourage

>But they vote in accordance with what the rich encourage
They vote in accordance with what they want, their have secret vote, if they prefer vote rich people is because they want.
I prefer have people who was successful in the private sector in the state, i am manipulated?

They shouldn't.

>I prefer have people who was successful in the private sector in the state, i am manipulated?
Yes. You are.

The rich control the narrative; the reason people think that more economically successful = more intelligent, more motivated, et cetera, is because the rich say so.

>The rich control the narrative; the reason people think that more economically successful = more intelligent, more motivated, et cetera, is because the rich say so.
Why you assume that? i prefer people who was successful in the private sector in the state for their experience, they only will rule for 4 years, that isn't enough time for lear how things works

>i prefer people who was successful in the private sector in the state for their experience, they only will rule for 4 years, that isn't enough time for lear how things works
I know. You think that because of the narrative.

>economically successful = more intelligent, more motivated, et cetera, is because the rich say so.

No, it's because it usually is true.

All the rich people who exist now, with the exception of royal families, are people who have made their money by doing something smart.

>people who have made their money by doing something smart.
>Implying spoiled rich kids don't exist
Around 50% of my fellow students at Uni are spoiled nouveau riche cunts. Their parents or grandparents may have been smart but they sure as hell aren't, they just paid their way into Uni for "the experience".

Well that's a problem with parenting, not wealth.

this

Because no one is educated in everything.

>spend money sending your inept little turdburglars to school
>kids don't learn anything
>they don't bring any new money to the family
>????????

It's a lot easier to spend money than make it, which is why rich families tend to run out of dosh after a while.

A rich idiot is still an idiot.

And if the rich people isn't be best than the poor people they don't be rich, the royalty and nobility no longer exist, the people who have more money is because they are best than the other people in that way the capitalism works.

If you destroy the elite you destroy the country, that is why the only communist regimes who was survive have a strongs political families o sindicates who replaced at the burgueses who replaced at the royalty

I'm thinking that having a decent amount of wealth because of inheritance or nepotism is wrong, and I think that having a decent amount of work because of hard work applied to a job in a sector where you got the job because your father had more money than other people to put you through college is wrong. I think that education is already rigged to stratify the population and when Bernie started talking about socializing college it got the cheaters scared. Separation is good, consolidation is no good, specialization is good, public education like Common Core, no good. But you can have specialization with a public system. Just make it free for anyone to get a degree already you effing chumps.

they will get mad, riot and cause millions of dollars in damage or maybe even put a dictator in power if they arent allowed

Educated people vote and rule because they won the revolutions of the XVIII and XIX centuries, people without education only vote because they did not win their revolution but were close enough to gain social rights

>public education like Common Core

People still bitch about that shit lol?

Yes because once upon a time you chose teachers that were reputable and that worked out fine. The way it is today, everyone learns the same shit taught the same way.

>A rich idiot is still an idiot.

Wow, what a stellar observation. Doesn't change the fact that people don't get rich by doing nothing.

morally right?
no
logically right?
absolutely
strategically right?
maybe

>logically right?
>absolutely
>strategically right?
>maybe
you are a retard, the only cause they fuel is that of right wingers in european countries, is why pol celebrates and actively wishes for attacks

Why should anyone be allowed to vote?

People will keep bringing it up until there are voter ID laws everywhere, as there should be. ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state#tab=Map

Also this:
youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs

welcome to democracy and it's flaws