quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I am amazed this thread is still alive.

I will reiterate that the only way the Republican party (with it's current platform) will ever win the White House is with the help of the Electoral College. (Even against Democrat candidates who have no business running (e.g. Hilary Clinton).

Many people don't realize ALL of the dark aspects of this system.

For example:
State control of Federal elections: Think this is a good idea?
Suppose a Republican controlled STATE legislature passes a law banning anyone who has been convicted of a felony from voting? Suppose, that same state legislature gives the Republican Secretary of State (who also doubles as the Republican party's state chair) full authority to determine who has committed a felony or not. Suppose that same Secretary of State selects a company owned by a big Republican donor to create a list of those felons, but with no accountability for the accuracy of that list? Suppose, those names HAPPEN to be people not likely to vote for the Republican candidate?

Gee... Hmmm Could this ever happen?

Suppose in a Democratic area they have voting machines supplied by Soros which end up with more votes counted than cast.
This year, in Detroit which, amazingly enough Hillary carried with ease , though not enough to steal the state, do you see that as a problem?
This was documented by Reuters.

Yes!!!! I definitely see it as a problem!!!! All the MORE reason to dump the Electoral College, and turn federal elections over to a transparent FEC who (instead of the useless bi-partisan piece of crap it is now) would be a non-partisan effective body with actual authority. The only part of your example, which isn't true, is the Soros connection. That got a "Pants on Fire"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/31/sean-duffy/wisconsin-congressman-fuels-soros-voting-machine-r/

The fact of the matter is they were using 10-12 yr old voting machines running Windows XP. (Not a priority to replace them by the Republican Secretary of State (former Republican candidate for Lt. Governor)).

Again, all the more reason to take the running of Federal elections out of the hands of inept, hugely partisan Secretaries of State, and have transparent NATIONAL standards.

Some examples:

1) Have national standards for what documentation is acceptable to establish eligibility to register to vote, and documented transparent procedures for enforcing those standards. Ensure that there is ample access at little or no cost to legitimately and legally obtain that documentation prior to the election.

2) Provide early and secure online voting nationwide (from home, or at kiosks at Post offices and Libraries) as well as in-person, and mail-in voting.

3) Provide a report to ANYONE who requests it online (in the form of a spreadsheet) showing EVERY single vote, by zip code, district, county, state, or nationally, with a privately provided ID # as the primary key. (i.e. I am voter #XXXXXXYYZ. I can see EVERYONE's vote by their ID # including my own.) That way EVERY vote total in every area, can individually be verified by ANYONE at ANY time.


The bottom line is: States SUCK at running Federal Elections (Most do) (Mine is awesome)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

I really can't believe you people are still arguing about this, as I explained it to you pages ago, you are all correct.

TDC...

I may be wayyyy off base here...

Is it possible that people who post on this thread are thinking independently, and don't actually rely solely on your opinion to validate or correct their thoughts?


I know it sounds far-fetched... But... maybe?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I am amazed this thread is still alive.

I will reiterate that the only way the Republican party (with it's current platform) will ever win the White House is with the help of the Electoral College. (Even against Democrat candidates who have no business running (e.g. Hilary Clinton).

Many people don't realize ALL of the dark aspects of this system.

For example:
State control of Federal elections: Think this is a good idea?
Suppose a Republican controlled STATE legislature passes a law banning anyone who has been convicted of a felony from voting? Suppose, that same state legislature gives the Republican Secretary of State (who also doubles as the Republican party's state chair) full authority to determine who has committed a felony or not. Suppose that same Secretary of State selects a company owned by a big Republican donor to create a list of those felons, but with no accountability for the accuracy of that list? Suppose, those names HAPPEN to be people not likely to vote for the Republican candidate?

Gee... Hmmm Could this ever happen?

Suppose in a Democratic area they have voting machines supplied by Soros which end up with more votes counted than cast.
This year, in Detroit which, amazingly enough Hillary carried with ease , though not enough to steal the state, do you see that as a problem?
This was documented by Reuters.

Yes!!!! I definitely see it as a problem!!!! All the MORE reason to dump the Electoral College, and turn federal elections over to a transparent FEC who (instead of the useless bi-partisan piece of crap it is now) would be a non-partisan effective body with actual authority. The only part of your example, which isn't true, is the Soros connection. That got a "Pants on Fire"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/31/sean-duffy/wisconsin-congressman-fuels-soros-voting-machine-r/

The fact of the matter is they were using 10-12 yr old voting machines running Windows XP. (Not a priority to replace them by the Republican Secretary of State (former Republican candidate for Lt. Governor)).

Again, all the more reason to take the running of Federal elections out of the hands of inept, hugely partisan Secretaries of State, and have transparent NATIONAL standards.

Some examples:

1) Have national standards for what documentation is acceptable to establish eligibility to register to vote, and documented transparent procedures for enforcing those standards. Ensure that there is ample access at little or no cost to legitimately and legally obtain that documentation prior to the election.

2) Provide early and secure online voting nationwide (from home, or at kiosks at Post offices and Libraries) as well as in-person, and mail-in voting.

3) Provide a report to ANYONE who requests it online (in the form of a spreadsheet) showing EVERY single vote, by zip code, district, county, state, or nationally, with a privately provided ID # as the primary key. (i.e. I am voter #XXXXXXYYZ. I can see EVERYONE's vote by their ID # including my own.) That way EVERY vote total in every area, can individually be verified by ANYONE at ANY time.


The bottom line is: States SUCK at running Federal Elections (Most do) (Mine is awesome)

Almost hate to break this too you but the fraud here was clearly nit by the republicans. If it had been Trump would have won much bigger and it wouldn't have provided Hillary with a huge local advantage. If anything this shows more need for the EC. Non partisan is an illusion. with people like Johnson , Nixon or Hillary at the top the opposition party, whichever it is, would never loose power.

quote:

ACCOMPANIED by a DOCUMENTED receipt of each vote for the public to view

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I am amazed this thread is still alive.

I will reiterate that the only way the Republican party (with it's current platform) will ever win the White House is with the help of the Electoral College. (Even against Democrat candidates who have no business running (e.g. Hilary Clinton).

Many people don't realize ALL of the dark aspects of this system.

For example:
State control of Federal elections: Think this is a good idea?
Suppose a Republican controlled STATE legislature passes a law banning anyone who has been convicted of a felony from voting? Suppose, that same state legislature gives the Republican Secretary of State (who also doubles as the Republican party's state chair) full authority to determine who has committed a felony or not. Suppose that same Secretary of State selects a company owned by a big Republican donor to create a list of those felons, but with no accountability for the accuracy of that list? Suppose, those names HAPPEN to be people not likely to vote for the Republican candidate?

Gee... Hmmm Could this ever happen?

Suppose in a Democratic area they have voting machines supplied by Soros which end up with more votes counted than cast.
This year, in Detroit which, amazingly enough Hillary carried with ease , though not enough to steal the state, do you see that as a problem?
This was documented by Reuters.

Yes!!!! I definitely see it as a problem!!!! All the MORE reason to dump the Electoral College, and turn federal elections over to a transparent FEC who (instead of the useless bi-partisan piece of crap it is now) would be a non-partisan effective body with actual authority. The only part of your example, which isn't true, is the Soros connection. That got a "Pants on Fire"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/31/sean-duffy/wisconsin-congressman-fuels-soros-voting-machine-r/

The fact of the matter is they were using 10-12 yr old voting machines running Windows XP. (Not a priority to replace them by the Republican Secretary of State (former Republican candidate for Lt. Governor)).

Again, all the more reason to take the running of Federal elections out of the hands of inept, hugely partisan Secretaries of State, and have transparent NATIONAL standards.

Some examples:

1) Have national standards for what documentation is acceptable to establish eligibility to register to vote, and documented transparent procedures for enforcing those standards. Ensure that there is ample access at little or no cost to legitimately and legally obtain that documentation prior to the election.

2) Provide early and secure online voting nationwide (from home, or at kiosks at Post offices and Libraries) as well as in-person, and mail-in voting.

3) Provide a report to ANYONE who requests it online (in the form of a spreadsheet) showing EVERY single vote, by zip code, district, county, state, or nationally, with a privately provided ID # as the primary key. (i.e. I am voter #XXXXXXYYZ. I can see EVERYONE's vote by their ID # including my own.) That way EVERY vote total in every area, can individually be verified by ANYONE at ANY time.


The bottom line is: States SUCK at running Federal Elections (Most do) (Mine is awesome)

Almost hate to break this too you but the fraud here was clearly nit by the republicans. If it had been Trump would have won much bigger and it wouldn't have provided Hillary with a huge local advantage. If anything this shows more need for the EC. Non partisan is an illusion. with people like Johnson , Nixon or Hillary at the top the opposition party, whichever it is, would never loose power.

I never said there was fraud by the Republicans in this case. I said the inept Republican Secretary of State did nothing to replace the decade old voting machines. I don't see your logic of how, yet another failure at the state level to run a Federal election shows more need for states to run Federal Elections.

If there were transparent, national standards for voting devices, ACCOMPANIED by a DOCUMENTED receipt of each vote for the public to view, this glitch would not have occurred. PERIOD.

That being said, my theory is, the inept Secretary of State just figured the faulty voting machines would help Republicans (and perhaps that is precisely what happened) (Perhaps Hilary would have won the state, if not for these machines)

Non-partisan is quite definable and achievable. Consider the following example rules for commission members:

1) No current or former affiliations with any registered political party (including fund raising, or elected office)
2) No officers of any corporations currently, or within the past 10 years
3) No lobbyists (officially or unofficially)
4) No political activity of any kind (other than voting) for the past 10 years (e.g. Social media)
5) A FULL investigation of ALL assets and possible conflicts of interest (including 20 years of past affiliations)
6) Full disclosure of all financial records including tax returns

Many more can be useful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

All 1876 proved is that, when a special commission is formed, members will vote along party lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

All 1876 proved is that, when a special commission is formed, members will vote along party lines.

And that is PRECISELY what the current FEC is. 3 partisan Republicans and 3 partisan Democrats. They literally get nothing done. Their chairman said they don't even bother to vote. (A minimum of 4 votes are required for the Commission to do anything).

The commission is very limited to what it can do anyway with the EC in place. For that matter, are OWN U.S. Constitution doesn't even guarantee us the right to vote!

In a truly Federal run Federal election system: The FEC would simply investigate any irregularities based on DOCUMENTED, transparent NATIONAL standards. There is not much "POWER" here because there is not much chance of irregularities.

The FEC could also address the massive gerrymandering with documented NATIONAL standards for districting.

With everyone in the country having the EXACT same access to vote, and falling under the exact SAME standards for documentation, and receiving a DOCUMENTED receipt of their vote and access to a report how EVERYONE else (identified by an anonymous ID #) voted, there can't be much that the FEC needs to do.

As for Bama's comment that a constitutional amendment is un-passable. I am not sure what he means. There is a process for amending the Constitution. There would have to be FAR fewer Republicans in office (in Congress and at the state level) for that to happen. Republicans protect the EC with their lives, because it is their only path to the White House.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


You actually believe that 37 states would agree to turn control of Federal elections over to the coasts? Wouldn't matter who controlled the states they wouldn't go for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I am amazed this thread is still alive.

I will reiterate that the only way the Republican party (with it's current platform) will ever win the White House is with the help of the Electoral College. (Even against Democrat candidates who have no business running (e.g. Hilary Clinton).

Many people don't realize ALL of the dark aspects of this system.

For example:
State control of Federal elections: Think this is a good idea?
Suppose a Republican controlled STATE legislature passes a law banning anyone who has been convicted of a felony from voting? Suppose, that same state legislature gives the Republican Secretary of State (who also doubles as the Republican party's state chair) full authority to determine who has committed a felony or not. Suppose that same Secretary of State selects a company owned by a big Republican donor to create a list of those felons, but with no accountability for the accuracy of that list? Suppose, those names HAPPEN to be people not likely to vote for the Republican candidate?

Gee... Hmmm Could this ever happen?

Suppose in a Democratic area they have voting machines supplied by Soros which end up with more votes counted than cast.
This year, in Detroit which, amazingly enough Hillary carried with ease , though not enough to steal the state, do you see that as a problem?
This was documented by Reuters.

Yes!!!! I definitely see it as a problem!!!! All the MORE reason to dump the Electoral College, and turn federal elections over to a transparent FEC who (instead of the useless bi-partisan piece of crap it is now) would be a non-partisan effective body with actual authority. The only part of your example, which isn't true, is the Soros connection. That got a "Pants on Fire"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/31/sean-duffy/wisconsin-congressman-fuels-soros-voting-machine-r/

The fact of the matter is they were using 10-12 yr old voting machines running Windows XP. (Not a priority to replace them by the Republican Secretary of State (former Republican candidate for Lt. Governor)).

Again, all the more reason to take the running of Federal elections out of the hands of inept, hugely partisan Secretaries of State, and have transparent NATIONAL standards.

Some examples:

1) Have national standards for what documentation is acceptable to establish eligibility to register to vote, and documented transparent procedures for enforcing those standards. Ensure that there is ample access at little or no cost to legitimately and legally obtain that documentation prior to the election.

2) Provide early and secure online voting nationwide (from home, or at kiosks at Post offices and Libraries) as well as in-person, and mail-in voting.

3) Provide a report to ANYONE who requests it online (in the form of a spreadsheet) showing EVERY single vote, by zip code, district, county, state, or nationally, with a privately provided ID # as the primary key. (i.e. I am voter #XXXXXXYYZ. I can see EVERYONE's vote by their ID # including my own.) That way EVERY vote total in every area, can individually be verified by ANYONE at ANY time.


The bottom line is: States SUCK at running Federal Elections (Most do) (Mine is awesome)

Almost hate to break this too you but the fraud here was clearly nit by the republicans. If it had been Trump would have won much bigger and it wouldn't have provided Hillary with a huge local advantage. If anything this shows more need for the EC. Non partisan is an illusion. with people like Johnson , Nixon or Hillary at the top the opposition party, whichever it is, would never loose power.

I never said there was fraud by the Republicans in this case. I said the inept Republican Secretary of State did nothing to replace the decade old voting machines. I don't see your logic of how, yet another failure at the state level to run a Federal election shows more need for states to run Federal Elections.

If there were transparent, national standards for voting devices, ACCOMPANIED by a DOCUMENTED receipt of each vote for the public to view, this glitch would not have occurred. PERIOD.

That being said, my theory is, the inept Secretary of State just figured the faulty voting machines would help Republicans (and perhaps that is precisely what happened) (Perhaps Hilary would have won the state, if not for these machines)

Non-partisan is quite definable and achievable. Consider the following example rules for commission members:

1) No current or former affiliations with any registered political party (including fund raising, or elected office)
2) No officers of any corporations currently, or within the past 10 years
3) No lobbyists (officially or unofficially)
4) No political activity of any kind (other than voting) for the past 10 years (e.g. Social media)
5) A FULL investigation of ALL assets and possible conflicts of interest (including 20 years of past affiliations)
6) Full disclosure of all financial records including tax returns

Many more can be useful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


You actually believe that 37 states would agree to turn control of Federal elections over to the coasts? Wouldn't matter who controlled the states they wouldn't go for that.

One could only hope (that we could have one Federal election with on documented set of standards)

(Not sure where the "coasts" thing came in)

Until then, we will have a million more Detroit's, and Republicans crying about California and illegal aliens (notice I said "ILLEGAL Aliens" because they are ILLEGAL and alien (not simply "Undocumented")), more Florida 2000's, more Ohio 2004's, and more voting machine failures. Oh, and sans a constitutional amendment guaranteeing ALL U.S. citizens the right to vote, we will have more arbitrary partisan state laws restricting people from voting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I see you wish to do away with the secret ballot too.
Don't you think that with the death threats that have been so freely issued lately that is a bit risky, and this is another right you want to get rid of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The Constitution already guarantees all U S citizens the right to vote. You do know that felons give up some of their rights when they are convicted, to say this is wrong means that they should also have their right to own firearms restored, both are stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The Constitution already guarantees all U S citizens the right to vote. You do know that felons give up some of their rights when they are convicted, to say this is wrong means that they should also have their right to own firearms restored, both are stupid.

Not exactly. There are a series of amendments banning the U.S. or individual states from restricting a right to vote based on certain criteria (e.g. race, gender, etc.). However that "right" if it exists is still granted by the states.

There is no specific Constitutional right to vote.

As for Felons: As to what rights they give up when they are convicted... That varies from state to state. (yet ANOTHER reason we need to dump the EC).

Your statement that criticism of denying people the right to vote based on a past felony conviction automatically means firearm ownership is a bit beyond absurd.


1) There are MANY varied and disparate crimes that qualify as felonies. Many are white-collar crimes and non-violent.
2) Regardless of the circumstances of the felony, if a person has served his/her time, and made reparations for his/her crime, what right does a state have to revoke his/her right to vote? (Presuming that person is currently a law-abiding citizen)
3) Voting is NOTHING like owning a gun. Some people are a danger to society if they possess a gun. Most are not. NO ONE is a danger to society by voting.
The restriction of gun ownership depends on (among other things) criminal history. Is the crime violent (whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor)?
If the past committed felony is non-violent, it may be quite appropriate for the ex-felon to own a gun. That is for states and localities to decide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The Constitution already guarantees all U S citizens the right to vote. You do know that felons give up some of their rights when they are convicted, to say this is wrong means that they should also have their right to own firearms restored, both are stupid.

Not exactly. There are a series of amendments banning the U.S. or individual states from restricting a right to vote based on certain criteria (e.g. race, gender, etc.). However that "right" if it exists is still granted by the states.

There is no specific Constitutional right to vote.

As for Felons: As to what rights they give up when they are convicted... That varies from state to state. (yet ANOTHER reason we need to dump the EC).

Your statement that criticism of denying people the right to vote based on a past felony conviction automatically means firearm ownership is a bit beyond absurd.


1) There are MANY varied and disparate crimes that qualify as felonies. Many are white-collar crimes and non-violent.
2) Regardless of the circumstances of the felony, if a person has served his/her time, and made reparations for his/her crime, what right does a state have to revoke his/her right to vote? (Presuming that person is currently a law-abiding citizen)
3) Voting is NOTHING like owning a gun. Some people are a danger to society if they possess a gun. Most are not. NO ONE is a danger to society by voting.
The restriction of gun ownership depends on (among other things) criminal history. Is the crime violent (whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor)?
If the past committed felony is non-violent, it may be quite appropriate for the ex-felon to own a gun. That is for states and localities to decide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The Constitution already guarantees all U S citizens the right to vote. You do know that felons give up some of their rights when they are convicted, to say this is wrong means that they should also have their right to own firearms restored, both are stupid.

Not exactly. There are a series of amendments banning the U.S. or individual states from restricting a right to vote based on certain criteria (e.g. race, gender, etc.). However that "right" if it exists is still granted by the states.

There is no specific Constitutional right to vote.

As for Felons: As to what rights they give up when they are convicted... That varies from state to state. (yet ANOTHER reason we need to dump the EC).

Your statement that criticism of denying people the right to vote based on a past felony conviction automatically means firearm ownership is a bit beyond absurd.


1) There are MANY varied and disparate crimes that qualify as felonies. Many are white-collar crimes and non-violent.
2) Regardless of the circumstances of the felony, if a person has served his/her time, and made reparations for his/her crime, what right does a state have to revoke his/her right to vote? (Presuming that person is currently a law-abiding citizen)
3) Voting is NOTHING like owning a gun. Some people are a danger to society if they possess a gun. Most are not. NO ONE is a danger to society by voting.
The restriction of gun ownership depends on (among other things) criminal history. Is the crime violent (whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor)?
If the past committed felony is non-violent, it may be quite appropriate for the ex-felon to own a gun. That is for states and localities to decide.

You don't think that felons have already displayed a lack of concern for the welfare that would make it dangerous for them to vote?
What kind of judges would they vote for? Nobody I would want in office.
The fact that the right to bear arms is a protected right also doesn't impress you at all. Your claim that when they get their rights back, but only the rights you want them to have is more absurd than anything I have ever said. So if I ask for the information using my neighbors name every thing will be cool.

You complain that they don't currently investigate anything an then you say that your non-partisan election commission wouldn't have to vote since irregularities are so rare, make up your mind.
The Constitution doesn't protect the right to votes and allows you to stop people from voting based on things like race? Have you ever heard of the voting rights act?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The Constitution already guarantees all U S citizens the right to vote. You do know that felons give up some of their rights when they are convicted, to say this is wrong means that they should also have their right to own firearms restored, both are stupid.

Not exactly. There are a series of amendments banning the U.S. or individual states from restricting a right to vote based on certain criteria (e.g. race, gender, etc.). However that "right" if it exists is still granted by the states.

There is no specific Constitutional right to vote.

As for Felons: As to what rights they give up when they are convicted... That varies from state to state. (yet ANOTHER reason we need to dump the EC).

Your statement that criticism of denying people the right to vote based on a past felony conviction automatically means firearm ownership is a bit beyond absurd.


1) There are MANY varied and disparate crimes that qualify as felonies. Many are white-collar crimes and non-violent.
2) Regardless of the circumstances of the felony, if a person has served his/her time, and made reparations for his/her crime, what right does a state have to revoke his/her right to vote? (Presuming that person is currently a law-abiding citizen)
3) Voting is NOTHING like owning a gun. Some people are a danger to society if they possess a gun. Most are not. NO ONE is a danger to society by voting.
The restriction of gun ownership depends on (among other things) criminal history. Is the crime violent (whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor)?
If the past committed felony is non-violent, it may be quite appropriate for the ex-felon to own a gun. That is for states and localities to decide.

You don't think that felons have already displayed a lack of concern for the welfare that would make it dangerous for them to vote?
What kind of judges would they vote for? Nobody I would want in office.
The fact that the right to bear arms is a protected right also doesn't impress you at all. Your claim that when they get their rights back, but only the rights you want them to have is more absurd than anything I have ever said. So if I ask for the information using my neighbors name every thing will be cool.

You complain that they don't currently investigate anything an then you say that your non-partisan election commission wouldn't have to vote since irregularities are so rare, make up your mind.
The Constitution doesn't protect the right to votes and allows you to stop people from voting based on things like race? Have you ever heard of the voting rights act?

1) People are redeemable. Either we trust the public to vote, or we don't. Who is to say that felon, who has paid his/her debt to society is any more of a danger in his/her vote than any other law-abiding citizen?
2) You keep harping on the judge voting... How do you know? Maybe you WOULD want the judge they voted for in office?
3) I never said that the right to bear arms doesn't impress me. I said that a gun is a danger to society in the hands of someone prone to violence. It is the propensity for violence which should determine one's restoration of one's 2nd amendment rights. Not the mere fact he/she had committed a felony in the past. Law-abiding, non-violent ex-felons own guns all over this country.

I don't understand the rest of your post.

I said there are a series of Constitutional amendments which ban discrimination (based on race, gender, etc.) of EXISTING voting rights (assuming they have been granted by the states) but the Constitution lacks an affirmative right to vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You want all rights restored automatically. What in the world makes you think that they would vote for anyone who would make their chosen life style more difficult? Some might not but the majority will vote for politicians in any office who will legalize what the want to do and lighten penalties to do anything else. You don't think that many people represent a danger to society by voting?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

so cities alone cant choose the president and dictate policy for the rest of us