67% of Republicans say that voting is a privilege, not a right and can be limited

Pew research have been investigating this a bit, and the results of their work have been put into 2 of these charts

Showing that 67% of Republicans believe voting is a privilege vs 32% who believe it is a right
and 21% of democrats who believe iti s a privilege vs 78% who believe it is a right

Showing that younger people, and less educated people are less polarized on this than older generations, withthe biggest divides being seen among older generations. This also applies to education. So much for indoctrination I guess *rolls eyes*.

According to Pew Research it looks whether or not voting is a right is a deeply partisan issue.

I have long held the belief that the Republican Party is the second greatest threat to Humanity (only behind climate change), between it being a breeding ground for COVID-45 misinformation, nationalism and religious fundamentalism in the west, anti-science, anti-intellectualism, climate change skepticism and it looks like these people flat out don't like democracy either.

Of course, questions on what defines a right or privilege could be had here. Could it simply mean that it could be taken away as soon as a (foreign) enemy defeats america and takes away their democracy once and for all? It could be a possibility for some of them. But I think it is far more likely, considering the direction the republican party has taken for a long time with voter suppression, that they simply dont want certain demographics to vote.

Yikes, 67% of the GOP are anti democracy, and if I may say so... anti-american.

As for the democrats, 78% of them believe voting is a fundamental right.

Edit: Fixed the thread, put the facts first, my take afterwards.

And yet gun rights are, well....rights.

God damn, that is so fucking backwards.

Gosh….to me these people are certainly intent on solidifying power for 2024 and after that particular election. It is really important that they won’t be elected in 2024 to the presidency.

It really shows a lot of deep resentment against…….something. By Republicans. Democracy?? I don’t really know about that. There’s gotta be other things going on too. As grand as that term maybe, it’s too simplistic to think that democratic deletion is the only thing going on.

It’s really a sad state of affairs.

America is falling and it's going to drag the rest of the west to some pretty dark times.

@Maroxad: "I have long held the belief that the Republican Party is the second greatest threat to Humanity"

Crap like that is just downright embarrassing, I understand when 5 year olds think like that after being brainwashed by parents or teachers, but a grown adult saying something like that is beyond cringe worthy.

The right to vote is not absolute. For example, Richardson v Ramirez.

@vfighter: Nah, The GOP as an institution is terrible for society and west as a whole, not only the US. As they serve as a very powerful vector for bad ideas. Most notably antiscience.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Currently in Law, you could argue it isn't. But at the same time, should that really be the case though?

Exactly what I was thinking. If you want to get through to Republicans on voting rights, you HAVE tie into gun rights.

That's another attempt by the SC of making laws. Once someone has paid their debt to society they should be allowed to vote. Honestly the only reason I can think to take voting from someone is to suppress votes.

We need a better SC.

@Maroxad: It's literally explicitly stated in the US Constitution.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Sorry, had a brainfart.

I meant to say, "Currently in Law, you could argue it is."

The poll seemed to indicate more of a approach to aughts than is, or at least that is how I interpreted their research.

Republicans hate democracy because it keeps proving their shit policy isn't liked or viable with the majority of America.

I'd say it's a pretty big threat at the moment due to covid and climate denial. And those 2 things are the biggest threats, so I'd say somewhat related.

All 'rights' are limited in scope someway, even the 1st and 2nd amendment 'rights'. Semantics aside, the republican party seems to play fast and loose with who they deem eligible for this 'privilege'. Look at US history with respect to Gerry Mandering, literacy tests, voter intimidation, voter disenfranchisement, etc.

The Hofeller records came out several years ago and are explicit in their nature at limiting the voter power of minority groups and strengthening those of white GOP voters. Now we're seeing republican state legislatures doing their best to strengthen their minority grasp as best they can (see Wisconsin state for best example).

@zaryia: Exactly this. If it werent for COVID and Climate Change. Republicans would just be a party I disagree with. But the misinformation they are spreading is outright killing people.

Was this a surprise to anyone?

@Maroxad: There is agreement between both Democrats and Republicans on the importance of allowing qualified people to vote. Question: "Importance of all qualified citizens being allowed to vote". 95% and 95% for both agree to that. I'm not sure why anything else is worth pandering too.

@horgen: It’s not a surprise to anyone. It’s just disheartening when you really think about it. I guess I expected better.

@Stevo_the_gamer: As long as you are 18 year old citizen NOT currently serving a sentence. You should be qualified to vote.

The rest is worth noting because quite frankly, voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue in the US.

Yeah, US Elections rank very poorly among rich/developed nations.

The definition of "qualified citizen" I suppose is where the argument lies.

I mean the fight is never over what it seems to be about. It's not about limiting/expanding votes in general; it's about limiting/expanding the definition of who can vote. Doing the former favors GOP, while the latter favor democrats.

Kind of agree with this. Auto-enrollment (or whatever you want to call it) should be a thing. You shouldn't have to go up and ask if you can vote and be told "well did you register?"; you should just simply go up and vote.

Also, emphasis on the currently serving a sentence; if you served time, you get your citizenship back, that includes rights.

All citizens are qualified, but some citizens are more qualified than others.

An internet poll says so, so it must be true.

felons don't vote

@Maroxad: Dunno dude, this doesn't really paint Republicans in the manner you think it does imo.

I don't see anything wrong with the right to vote having responsibilities that come along with it. There simply appears to be a bit of vagueness around what constitutes a "qualified citizen".

Both sides overwhelmingly agree that anyone legally qualified should be able to vote.

The biggest takeaway is that Republicans are far less confident that unqualified people are being excluded from voting than Democrats. And given the Democrat response to all of these election reform bills, it's not exactly a surprise. When you frame things like the requirement to present ID to vote as "voter suppression" etc, that tends to happen.

The proof is in the pudding. Republicans are solving for a problem that doesn't exist. If you're complaining about election fraud and instituting new requirements to mitigate threats to legitimate elections, you're generally required to provide evidence. The problem is they have nothing to show for it. In the case of voter ID it's been shown that it would produce a material affect on turn out which disproportionally impacts minorities and democratic voters. It's detailed in actual GOP election campaign tactics i.e. the Hofeller files.

In short, these republican lead efforts are a solution in search of a problem.

@Vaasman: Is it really a democracy though? Looks more like a plutocracy and an oligarchy to me.

It's a decent estimate of national Republican opinion. Can you refute it with data?

I take your dismay at these poll results means you disagree with 67% of your party on voting.

Republicans are solving for a problem which as of this moment, we aren't quite sure if it exists or not, and to what extent if it does.

Neither you or I are involved whatsoever the the counting of ballots, or the companies who create the machines that take them as far as I know. So any supposed information we have on how secure/unsecure the voting process actually is, is based on second hand information you and I cannot independently verify.

Ask yourself what your position would be, had Democrats introduced bills to secure future elections in the same manner, under the impetus that Trump may try to somehow rig the next one. Would you still feel the same?

It seems insane to me that any country allows one to vote without providing government issued photo ID in the first place. Yet so many Americans (mostly democrats) seem to think this requirement is akin to fascism creeping in. Very weird.

Routine election audits are done all the time so we can quit this entire façade of saying, 'Well we don't know what's out there', because we have a very good idea. The idea of mass election fraud is easily verifiable and every attempt to frame it as an issue fails due to lack of evidence.

What we do know is that the republican's play book purposely targeted ID requirements since they knew it gave them an advantage.

Edit: And for what it's worth I actually support the idea of government issued IDs being readily available and required for proof of voting. However, that support doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is also contingent upon the promise of making the ID easy to obtain, free, and distributed without incident of causing disenfranchisement. Given historical context I know that certain states and bad actors would absolutely make it an impasse to voting.

No we know it doesn't exist. There has not been any election wherein adequate fraud was found to overturn an election. 2020 was the most secure we've had in a long time. Both Homeland and the DOJ said no material fraud.

Ballots were ONLY questioned where trump thought he should have won. Show me which red county was recounted? There were recounts/audits in those areas. Guess what, trump still lost. Why did Republicans win on those ballots? Why did the Democrats lose House seats. Why didn't they get a bigger majority in the Senate? This makes no sense to anyone who uses critical thinking. 60 court cases said he had no proof of fraud. His attorneys told judges they had no proof of fraud.

trump started this lie as far back as 2016 for an excuse if he lost. He repeated it prior to the 2020 election. He lost. He can't handle it. So he told a lie and his base ate it up.

@appariti0n: Now YOU sound like spock. Nice.

You wanna rule in on this for me? https://www.gamespot.com/forums/political-gamers-909409192/activision-blizzards-metoogamergate-moment-fake-or-33565086/

If you were a football fan, I'd be worried about the referee getting doxxed.

It already is a privilege, considering I've heard that criminals can't vote.

Maybe you should open your minds to the possibility that the issue should be treated with nuance instead of a one size fits all solution. Enjoy some hypotheticals once in a while.

Your rights are whatever your society deems to grant you as a member of that society during your course of life. Natural rights or absolute rights are a nice ideal and they look great on paper, but society tramples them when it wants to do so. Having said that, we generally are slowly adding to rights over time to account for more nuance.

Ironically, many conservatives go down the logic path of privilege and sometimes to a means test....which if implemented would generally disqualify their own voter base disproportionately.

A surprise to no one. Expect nothing less from a batshit insane, crypto-Nazi party.

Almost as backwards as banning a black man from the opportunity of running for Governor in California I'd say. As the DA of that state as already determined those who have a right to vote, don't have a right to vote for him.

@SUD123456: Hey, conservatives don't mind if minorities have guns too as long as they're not illegals and they'd probably happy to abide by a standardized intelligence test when it comes to voting too.

If the democrats would ever let that happen.

@eoten:

Citation needed, google didn't find anything like that.

I disagree.

Rights are not absolute, and the conscious decision making of an individual can have lasting consequences. Such consequences which could include being on a sex registrant list for life, or the arson list for life, no longer being able to serve on a jury, not being able to obtain certain jobs/disclosure of criminal history, unable to hold office, forfeit of certain business licenses, not being able to possess or purchase a firearm, or not being able to vote.

If the criminals do not like the consequences of their actions, then perhaps they should think about that the next time they decide to victimize their fellow community members.

@Stevo_the_gamer: You know, this brings up an interesting point. I think It's been long perceived that there's a visible disconnect between government and constitution.

Maybe instead of focusing on our end-goals for voting, we should analyze the intentions behind making voting a right. There's always so much shouting about what should be done, but never enough talk of why it was done.

Larry Elder is attempting to run for governor of California but was banned from doing so by the state election officials, even though he met state requirements to be on the ballot according to the superior court judge that overturned the restriction in his favor.

@eoten: You seem to be implying it was a decision based on race, and while I'm not defending it... Do you know where I can see their reasoning?

@wilddog73: Tell me, if it was someone like Stacy Abrams who was kept off the ballot in Georgia because of any other reason, but it was only her, what would the media be saying it was about? What would the people in this thread be telling you? Let's face it, left, right, neither side is more or less guilty of trying to control elections than their opponents.

So I find these irrelevant polls seeked out to satiate someones confirmation bias that the right is trying to ruin election integrity, while the left clearly tried to deny a man his right to even be on the ballot (which the judge ruled they had no grounds to do in the first place) then what matters is it happened, and it happened unilaterally and for reasons outside of any written law or rule.

It's wrong, despite either his skin color or his beliefs.

@appariti0n: Big word there is qualified.

How do you determine who is qualified? By adding arbitary rules of qualification you can more or less determine who can and who can't vote. While I do agree about the minimum age limit, any other form of qualification is just voter disenfranchisement.

If I were in power, I could arbitarily set rules of qualifications, to suddenly make demographics less likely to vote for me no longer qualified to vote. Republicans are already doing this with vast swathes of voter suppression. And they have had a history of doing this as well.

Simply making it a right, is the best way to keep it fair, and without tampering.

Law or not, Laws have often been written as a way to keep certain people in power, and out of power. It's an unfortunate state of reality.

Which is exactly why I am against government in any form being given any kind of far reaching powers over much of anything. They already make those determinations, daily, in many aspects of our lives and are constantly seeking more.

@eoten: Governments are a necessary evil unfortunately.

I would definately love the government to be limited in ANY area where it is basically just personal decisions that dont affect others. I am against a lot of the overreaching socialist policies that dont have any evidence support them (that they are a good thing).

And I would agree with that for the most part, since that is the vision the founders of this country had when they formed it, and the more those barriers to power, the separation of power is eroded, the closer we get to more people getting disenfranchised.