I looked around a little bit for another thread to post this in, and I'm not even sure what kind of discussion we could have around this, but I wanted to share the following personal experience from my trip to the (early) voting booth last Friday.

There were a ton of people at the polling place (in N. Raleigh, off of Six Forks), it was hard to find parking, and once I wound my way to the polling place entrance past the cabal of campaigners handing out voting guides, campaign flyers, etc., I found myself standing in line to verify my registration.

Directly in front of me in line were a mother and daughter who arrived together. The daughter was apparently well-over eighteen, and well-retarded. She probably had downs syndrome. I didn't get their history or anything, but I did overhear enough "conversation" between them to ascertain that the daughter, against the advice so readily available online, had gone full-retard.

At any rate, as they arrived at the front of our line with their republican voting guides clutched firmly in their ham-like fists (not particularly relevant, but I found it funny), the mother asked the elderly line-master if it would be OK if they shared a voting booth. There was some offering of explanation and exchange of the desired particulars that I couldn't entirely hear, but finally the woman in charge told them it would be fine if they shared the same booth.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's nothing sadder, more unfortunate, or more indicative of a parent's love and hard work than a developmentally challenged child, and I'm sure many of you are close to similar situations and can share that sentiment. Further, please know that I don't wish to make any more light of this child's condition than is necessary to furnish us with an entertaining narrative and perhaps a spirited discussion.

That having been said, this particular situation struck me as odd and potentially improper. Here's this mother -- in what appears to be full control of her child -- ready, willing, and cleared to take "advantage" of the situation and to cast what one might consider the equivalent of two votes.

TWW:TSB, what say you?

[Edited on November 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM. Reason : accidentally a word]

11/1/2010 6:19:12 PM

I bet it was this dynamic duo that put Bush in the whitehouse in 2000.

This has to be stopped.

11/1/2010 6:24:17 PM

^ Cut the bullshit out, asshat.

Coaxing someone into voting for someone you support to essentially have 2 votes is wrong. It's no different than paying someone to vote for you. You know damn well that mother was point her daughter to the Republican candidates, or just filling out the ballot herself. If you don't have the mental capacity to vote yourself without the aid of others (considering how simple the entire process is), then you shouldn't vote.

11/1/2010 6:39:58 PM

I can see how some would feel this is wrong.

comma however . . .

If coaxing someone into voting for you based on the promise of financial remuneration is wrong then our entire system would fall apart. Shit, politicians practically run on either the promise of delivering something to the voters or fearmongering that the other guy will take it away.


In the big scheme of things, I'm less worried about a woman convincing her retarded daughter to vote than I am of massive voter fraud perpetuated by political machines all around the US. Until we get a lock on that, this is a non-issue.

11/1/2010 6:58:33 PM

^ it's an interesting philosophical question.

I guess you could suppose that the mentally handicapped person might have expressed some desire that could be interpreted as left/right leaning, and the mother ran with this as her political platform (although most likely this isn't the case...). This is pretty much how democracy is supposed to work, anyone can vote that meets the requirements in the constitution (and what Plato felt was a flaw in democracy).

But if the mother is seeing this as a way to easily enhance her vote, that is morally and ethically wrong. The best we can hope for is that people on the other side are doing the same thing.

In the grand scheme of things, this type of fraud probably doesn't have a meaningful effect.

11/1/2010 7:08:43 PM

I agree that there are bigger fish to fry. And hell, I'm registered to vote twice in Wake county, but they don't care enough to fix it even though they notice every time I go.

Also, keep in mind that I didn't witness any coercion, I'm simply reading in to their sharing of a booth and their two identical voting guides. It's entirely possible that they had the best of intentions, and the mother simply aided the daughter in physically filling out the form, I don't know.

11/1/2010 7:18:25 PM

Apparently there are laws on the books in some places that bar mentally incapable people from voting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19vote.html

The American Bar Association seems to recommend that someone can vote if they can provide on their own information for a voter registration form. I guess this skirts the requirement of there being no test to vote, since you theoretically would have filled this out anyway.

Quote :

"In a sad example of continued stigmatization and discrimination against people with a mental illness, the California Republican Party has raised questions about ten votes cast in the Presidential election. Why? Because the voters had developmental disabilities and were helped in learning the process to cast their votes by one of their non-disabled caretakers."

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/10/31/gop-thinks-mentally-disableds-votes-shouldnt-count/

I vaguely recall that in NC you can have someone in the booth with you if youre disabled or otherwise, but i'm not 100% on this.

11/1/2010 7:26:30 PM

Quote :

"If you don't have the mental capacity to vote yourself without the aid of others (considering how simple the entire process is), then you shouldn't vote."

11/1/2010 7:27:45 PM

everyone is under the influence of others, thats how society works. You get your ideas from the news who gets their shit from some source who did some research which probably involved other people. Everyone down the line has their own agenda that taints the final product. You can try to take everything you hear with a grain of salt, but you're still going to be making a best effort guess on who you wanna vote for.

A retard brain may not be able to handle the concepts of verifying sources or understanding motives, but in the end they're gonna make the best choice their retard brain can make. If they only ever get their data from one source (caretaker) then yeah they'll probably have the same opinions, but thats how it is. You cant set a point "must have this much 'tard or below to vote" because that point is gonna be too hard to pick. And really how different is this from someone like Hooksaw, getting all his news from fox news? Or supplanter, getting all his news from democratic talking point sites?

In the end its all bullshit and theres not even a guarantee who you vote for will be the same person once in office. Retard or less of a retard, it doesn't really matter and you aint gonna fix it.

11/1/2010 7:56:07 PM

Everybody deserves a vote. And they deserve a free, private vote that doesn't include their mom or a caretaker standing over them.

We need to make accommodations for folks so they can vote. Does anybody know anything about this? How do people with motor disabilities fill out those little circles?

11/1/2010 7:58:37 PM

my grandma has macular degeneration and shes legally blind. She can see well enough to walk around somewhat but cant read. When election time comes around she gets an absentee ballout and someone from my family goes over and helps her fill it out. Shes still got her wits about her, so its not like shes gonna be swayed by one of us, she just cant physically fill out the bubbles, or fill out the forms/addresses.

A caretaker or family member is going to be a better help than some volunteer election assistant who doesn't know anyting about the person or their disability.

If someone is so disabled they cant fill out the form, they aren't gonna be driving themselves to the polling place nor are they gonna be able to fill out a ballot at home. In either situation they're gonna have someone who helps them out.

11/1/2010 8:04:26 PM

Quote :

"If you don't have the mental capacity to vote yourself without the aid of others (considering how simple the entire process is), then you shouldn't vote."

are you prepared to go down the road that leads? Namely, what happens when an otherwise-functional elderly person needs help comprehending the ballot?

11/1/2010 8:07:11 PM

if aaronburro can vote, why not retards?

(just kidding... i couldn't help myself)

11/1/2010 8:10:47 PM

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/GetDocument.aspx?id=2408

Quote :

"VOTER ASSISTANCE A voter’s close family members are allowed to help the voter enter the voting booth, vote the ballot and exit the voting booth. A voter in any of the following four categories is entitled to assistance from a person of the voter's choice if the voter: *is unable to enter the voting booth without assistance due to a physical disability; *is unable to mark a ballot without assistance due to a physical disability; *Is unable to mark a ballot without assistance due to illiteracy; or *is unable to enter the voting booth or mark a ballot without assistance due to blindness. Assistance cannot be provided by the voter's employer, an agent of that employer, or an officer or agent of the voter's union. CURBSIDE VOTING (only for aged and disabled voters) Curbside voting is offered at each polling location. An aged or disabled voter can vote while in a vehicle outside the polling location. This includes all one-stop absentee (early) voting sites. A curbside voter has the same rights to assistance as any other voter."

http://www.democracy-nc.org/voting/whocanvote.html

Quote :

"Cognitive & Mental Disabilities North Carolina does NOT have a constitutional disqualification election statute and state law N.C.G.S. 122C-58 states that only an unrevoked adjudication of incompetency can take away a person’s right to vote. However, a North Carolina Attorney General Opinion has reasoned that a person who has been adjudicated incompetent can register to vote pursuant to the state constitution’s grant of universal suffrage (43:1 N.C. Attorney General Reports 85, 85-87). This means that individuals who have cognitive disabilities -- such as an intellectual functioning level (IQ) below 70-75 or significant limitations in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills -- still have the right to vote. In addition, individuals with mental disabilities have the right to vote, including people who are adult clients at residential care facilities. If you are the guardian, caregiver, or near relative of someone with a cognitive or mental disability and they wish to vote, you are allowed to accompany them to help them register and vote. This includes explaining what the form or ballot says, helping them fill out any necessary information and marking their ballot for them. You may not tell them how to vote, however – it is their right and their responsibility to make that decision for themselves."

I found some advocacy groups for those with cognitive or mental disabilities that basically said of course they can vote, and get as much help as they need. And some sites that further said that anyone may get help from anyone. But I tried to find more official looking information.

The first link is from the State Board of Elections, so that looks official. The second bit of information is from a group that describes itself this way:

"We are a statewide nonpartisan organization that uses research, advocacy, organizing, civic engagement and training programs to address the key issues affecting democracy in North Carolina."

So whatever they say is not official, but they also wouldn't seem to have an obvious preference for pushing things one way or the other.

Based on these my understanding is that anyone with a cognitive or mental disability may vote short of a judge specifically saying they can't. The question of what assistance they may receive is a little more unclear. I had trouble finding official information about those with cognitive or mental disabilities and voting assistance. The official language I saw seemed to suggest only physical disabilities and blindness qualified for voter assistance. But the potentially disinterested non-profit seemed to suggest they may receive help, but the person helping them may absolutely not tell them who to vote for in the polling booth.

More clarity on the SBOE website would be a good thing IMO, especially since such laws seem to vary so much from state to state.

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/content.aspx?id=57

Quote :

"Obtaining Accommodations as to the Voting Procedure. Voters may need accommodations for a mental, aged or physical condition when actually registering to vote or casting a ballot on a voting system. "

This mentions mental conditions as entitling one to generically phrased accommodations, but then it goes on to list the specific situations where one can receive help and doesn't list mental conditions in there at all (although it does list literacy issues).

Without siding on what the law should or shouldn't be here, whatever the law is, I feel it needs to be more clearly articulated.

11/1/2010 8:12:26 PM

Okay, so it looks like we need to continue let people vote (I'd never have it any other way), and we need to allow them to have a person to help them vote.

The only implication of this thread is that poll workers need to remain on the lookout for coercion. I don't know what the protocol would be if they did witness coercion though. What do you do? Just file a report?

11/1/2010 8:15:59 PM

Quote :

"are you prepared to go down the road that leads? Namely, what happens when an otherwise-functional elderly person needs help comprehending the ballot?"

Yes. Don't be stupid. This is pretty cut and dry.

An "otherwise-functional elderly person" is what? A person who can breath, walk, communicate and computer 1+1 in their head? Big whoop. IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE BALLOT, WHICH IS COMPOSED OF EITHER A TOUCHSCREEN, CHECK BOXES, OR SOME OTHER SIMPLE CHOOSING MECHANISM, then I'm sorry, you shouldn't vote. I don't mean to deprive them of their right, but it's not fair to the system when you open it up to corruption. It's not fair to the system when you let someone else act as a proxy to vote for you. You're essentially giving one person two votes.

Why not let babies vote? We can have their parents do it for them. I'm sure the commie mother knows what their baby wants.

11/1/2010 8:27:31 PM

Quote :

"Yes. Don't be stupid. This is pretty cut and dry."

No, it isn't.

11/2/2010 5:46:43 AM

Quote :

"IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE BALLOT, ... then I'm sorry, you shouldn't vote."

You just ruled out half of Florida with their hanging chads.

11/2/2010 6:05:23 AM

Quote :

"the daughter, against the advice so readily available online, had gone full-retard."

What?

11/2/2010 11:09:32 AM

retards have the samel constitutional rights as any other citizen, and they have every reason to vote according to their best interests, even if it has to be explained to them by their primary care giver.

you fucking Nazis need to clean your own house.

11/2/2010 11:23:39 AM

^^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0942385/quotes?qt0477767

^ I agree, and from some of the information posted in this thread what happened was most likely completely fine.

11/2/2010 11:41:04 AM

Question... why, whether you agree with it or not, is there a minimum voting age?

11/2/2010 11:42:20 AM

are you serious? are you asking why is there a difference between adults and children? do you think this is a clever argument that you have devised?

the legal age of responsibility does not vary according to intellectual capacity. unless the person has been declared legally incompetent or is a convicted felon, every adult citizen has full legal rights and responsibilities as a citizen.




[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 11:50:24 AM

Can we have retarded children sheriffs?

11/2/2010 12:11:27 PM

It's so sad to hear about someone voting Republican when they are so desparately in need of stem cells.

11/2/2010 12:18:03 PM

my wife checked my ballot to make sure I voted the right way. is that voter intimidation?

11/2/2010 12:19:12 PM

Quote :

"my wife checked my ballot to make sure I voted the right way. is that voter intimidation? "

Only if you voted republican

If not, you can bring weapons to the polls and its no big deal.

11/2/2010 12:22:31 PM

Quote :

"are you serious? are you asking why is there a difference between adults and children? do you think this is a clever argument that you have devised?"

Please explain to me why a 5 year old cannot vote, yet a person over the age of 18 with a mental capacity of a 5 year old can. I want you to go over the difference. Please. Elaborate in as much detail as possible. Whatever you do though, don't highlight the fact that a child is capable of understanding far less than that of an adult of average intelligence, as that would highlight the exact reason why mentally handicapped people (retards) shouldn't vote for the same reason a child shouldn't vote.

Before you respond with some "are you serious" bullshit, I will elaborate my point. Obviously when dictating that a 5 year old cannot vote, their mental capacity is clearly taken in account. We don't even need scientific evidence to prove that a 5 year old and an 18 year old are capable of understanding different things. An 18 year old understands the danger of sniffing glue and a 5 year old realizes the untapped capabilities of unicorn blood.

And my whole problem isn't so much a retard voting. If they're able to understand the ballot without someone else's help, fine. I've been checking boxes since the age of 5, so it's not really hard to understand. What I have a problem with is allowing someone into the voter booth who can easily manipulate the person they are "helping." Hell, all the person has to do is ask a loaded question like "you want to vote all Republican/Democrat/Nazi, don't you?" With all of this said, I have no problem with giving a retard and his/her mother two options. Go into the booth alone and do the best that you can, or turn around and leave.

11/2/2010 12:47:03 PM

Quote :

"the legal age of responsibility does not vary according to intellectual capacity. unless the person has been declared legally incompetent or is a convicted felon, every adult citizen has full legal rights and responsibilities as a citizen."

qft

11/2/2010 1:03:24 PM

It seems to me that if you are legally competent to sign a contract, stand trial etc, that you should be allowed to vote, even if you need someone to read you the ballot, or even mark it for you. Solving the intimidation coercion at the ballot problem is as simple as having a a poll worker available to oversee and limit the reading of the ballot to something like:

"For president, do you choose Bob Jones, John Doe, or Jane Plain"

and "Do x to mark for Jane Plain"

As for solving the influence at home problem, you simply can't and there's no point in trying, and certainly not in denying someone the right to vote simply because a few disabled people who have difficulties reading or marking the ballot might be influenced by their care giver.

11/2/2010 1:08:44 PM

thanks merbig. you saved me a lot of typing.

11/2/2010 1:14:19 PM

merbig/wdprice

in the US, and throughout all of human societies for thousands of years, the full rights as a society member are granted based on age.

in the United States, voting is a constitutional right for all adult citizens who have not had their right revoked for conviction of a felony. plain and simple.

the constitutional right to vote is not predicated on intellectual capacity, or IQ tests, or reading comprehension tests, or English language test, or credit checks, or hair and eye color tests, or genetic chromosomal tests, or any other restrictive qualifiers you may wish to impose.

now you can go read the United States Constitution before espousing your next round of Nazi interpretations of who can vote and who cant.





[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 1:29:16 PM

Godwined by joe_schmoe!

11/2/2010 1:35:49 PM

^^You're missing the point (yes, I know you probably see their point, but you're not making it very apparent in your argument).

You're quoting the law when they're asking you why the law exists in the first place. (And, just as a frame of reference, it's that sort of by-the-books law-for-the-sake-of-law self-referential-loop sort of argument that sometimes got used by hooksaw and some other less-than-rational conservatives in the past)

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM. Reason : hyphenated-word-string-adjective-combos!]

11/2/2010 1:37:39 PM

Thanks, but i knew this objection would follow. it was easier for me to wait for it.

okay, WHY is it a law, you ask? because the architects of this country came from places where all sorts of qualifiers were used to exclude people from self-governance. qualifiers like religion, property, wealth led to disenfranchising large groups of people and the establishment of a "ruling class" that was able to inflict all sorts of abuses upon the ruled.

not that the founders were perfect; they themselves excluded people based on race and gender. but we've since corrected that disparity.

it comes down to this: when you open the door to require "testing" people as to whether or not they are "qualified" to vote, you open the door to allow any number of civil rights abuses that will disenfranchise voters. a functioning representative democracy requires that every single adult citizen be allowed to vote, and this right to be universally applied regardless of ability, means, class, or capacity.

you cant pick and choose a subset of the adults you wish to include for self-governance, otherwise your representative democracy will become an oligarchy.





[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 1:58:29 PM

There should only be two qualifications for the right to vote:
-Adulthood, or the arrival of adulthood during the term.
-Citizenship

11/2/2010 2:08:12 PM

^^Ah, but, just to play a little bit of devil's advocate, maybe even give you some more points to mention...

You never made mention of why our voting law discriminates on the basis of age in the first place.

If "you can't pick and choose a subset of adults you wish to include", then who's to say what even constitutes an 'adult' to begin with (or more to the point, why are they right to say it)? You mention "testing" and "qualifications", but how is age not a qualification? As per that other thread, what reason is stopping lawmakers from moving the age of 'adulthood' from 18 to 16? Or to reference wdprice and merbig, why aren't we declaring 5-year-olds to be legal adults? Why don't we allow all people of all ages just as we allow people of all colors, classes, religions, and intellects?

11/2/2010 2:25:59 PM

Adulthood, for the purposes of voting, is the moment when, with regards only to age, a person can be reasonably expected to make sound decisions and be fully responsible for one's actions. It is a national standard, and while it may not be accurate in all cases, it's completely unbiased and fair.

There are certainly adults who do not posess the cognitive rationale implied with their age, but thats far more difficult to quantify fairly than age.

11/2/2010 2:49:40 PM

Quote :

"It is a national standard, and while it may not be accurate in all cases, it's completely unbiased and fair."

It's certainly unbiased, but I'd hesitate to call anything "fair" which is not an accurate assessment in all cases. Then again, few things in the world are fair. Hell, life's not fair, so that's just too bad for the smart kids.

11/2/2010 2:54:08 PM

Quote :

"You never made mention of why our voting law discriminates on the basis of age in the first place.... who's to say what even constitutes an 'adult' to begin with <etc. etc.>"

why is a child a child? why is a child not an adult? why can't 5 year olds just leave home and tell mommy and daddy they're going to do whatever they want? i understand you're playing devils advocate, but this is what you're asking me.

look, you're comparing apples to oranges. an adult person of diminished mental capacity is NOT a legal child. a child is NOT a legal adult of diminished mental capacity. you can not compare the two.

for the record, an 18 year old retarded person can leave home and do whatever they want. or enter into a contract. however, their caregiver tries to discourage that as it tends to make their life more difficult. it may wind up involving legal action and judges and testimony health care professionals. It does not rely on the capricious and arbitrary judgment of uneducated, untrained, unprofessional polling place volunteers.



and to answer your NEXT QUESTION:

because we are a nation of LAWS

that's why.

we are not living in an oligarchy of philosopher-kings, we are not living in Plato's Republic, where decisions are made by the wisest council after consideration of all extenuating circumstances filtered through the lens of the greatest moral good.

we are governed by laws that are legislated by our elected representatives, interpreted by an impartial judiciary, and enforced by elected officials and those whom we hire to work under them. our laws have a fundamental framework that can not be modified by the whims of the prevailing opinion of the day. voting rights for every adult citizen is part of that framework.




[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 2:59:32 PM

Joe feels threatened you guys are going to take away his right to vote.

But he is right on this issue. imo

11/2/2010 3:08:04 PM

"New Elite" vs. "Classical Liberal" battle ITT

11/2/2010 3:25:04 PM

Quote :

"why is a child a child? why is a child not an adult?"

The answer, which you could have given yourself but avoided doing (good job playing the rhetoric game, I suppose? ) is that we make a distinction based on the idea that, on average, children are not yet developed enough, mentally and emotionally, to be responsible for making rational and informed decisions. In short form, we discriminate based on (perceived) intellectual capacity.

Quote :

"an adult person of diminished mental capacity is NOT a legal child. a child is NOT a legal adult of diminished mental capacity. you can not compare the two."

While I agree that they are certainly two different things and that it is an important distinction to make, I wouldn't say that we're unable to compare them.

Hell, people do it all the time... If the reading ability of someone who is barely-literate (not even someone retarded) is assessed, they would likely be referred to as having a second-grade reading level. Right there, a less-able adult was just compared against the average child of a certain age (yes, technically age and grade are different, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the two correlate). Even though it may not be a scientifically sound term, someone who is clinically retarded might be referred to as having the mental capacity of an [X]-year-old. If someone can perform basic motor functions but has yet to discover things like object permanence, that places them on the same level as a certain age-range of young children (not that all mental disabilities are that simple or easily classified).


...and for the record, I'm still playing devil's advocate, mostly... I generally agree with you, but I absolutely don't think that friends or family should be allowed into a voting booth with someone who is mentally handicapped as described in the OP scenario (and the way to prevent this would be to disallow friends and family from entering a booth with anyone, regardless of their mental ability). The only adults who should be going into a booth with a voter are the polling place volunteers (many of whom, really, probably ought to be better-trained in unbiased assistance of disabled voters) or a medical attendant accompanying that person...

Quote :

"and to answer your NEXT QUESTION"

The next question was certainly not going to be "Why don't we just restrict all voting based on intellectual merits?" ...At least mine wasn't, though it just might be what wdprice was driving at.

That's too simple. Certainly too idealistic, considering that we still don't have a method of determining someone's intelligence with reasonable accuracy... or even a concrete enough definition of intelligence, especially as it relates to political action. It would be silly to attempt to implement those sorts of restrictions given the limited tools currently at our disposal. Devil's advocate or no, I don't think you're that silly, joe.

[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2010 3:28:29 PM

look i'm tired of this, go troll someone else.

besides, caregivers of the mentally handicapped ensure they will vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. we get our activists to take them to the polls by the vanload. retirement homes, too.







[Edited on November 2, 2010 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2010 5:29:46 PM

Not according to my overwhelming anecdotal evidence.

11/2/2010 5:31:30 PM

yeah, your two fatty hamfisted Fox and Friends watchers.

11/2/2010 5:32:37 PM

She wasn't mentally retarded - that's just how tea partiers come off

Just kidding, calm down..

11/2/2010 6:32:10 PM

While I know tromboner950 is playing devils advocate, let me clarify something.

I'm not saying we need to redefine any type of Constitutional qualification. I'm saying that we simply don't allow people to help mentally handicapped people vote. If someone wants to drive a retard down the the polling stations, give them a pep talk to vote straight-ticket Democrat, fine. I morally object to it, but I see no reason to legally object to it. Where I object is allowing anyone to help them out, only on the basis that someone can basically vote for them.

You tell me to go look back at the Constitution. Well, I thought it was understood that we all only get one vote, and no one person's vote is more important than another. You're setting yourself up to allow one person to have more than one vote when you allow them to help a mentally handicapped person.

To take this to the extreme. What if a retarded person was brought in to vote. This person is not functional. They're in a wheelchair and they aren't even capable of forming words. They are below the mental capacity of a 3 year old. They have very little control of their motor skills. I think we all know damn well that if someone goes into that booth to vote, that the person voting "for them" has no way of knowing what the person wants, and anyone who has any scruples wouldn't bring them to a polling place, because we know that they aren't capable of voting. So who would be casting their vote? Their caretaker? Who are they going to vote for? Whoever the caretaker wants elected. Tell me, is this fair? Is this even legal? A person is effectively getting two votes.

I'm not asking for a ban on people with below a certain IQ to not be allowed to vote. I'm saying that they simply aren't allowed assistance, unless there is a physical handicap involved (like a loss of a limb or two). A family member certainly shouldn't be allowed to help, and the retarded person has to tell the assistant who to vote for, IE, they have to treat them the same as anyone else who had a physical handicap. If the person isn't able to tell the person who to vote for, either through pointing or some other communication method, then no, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Not because I think they're stupid, but because they're not the ones who are actually choosing the candidate.

Quote :

"in the US, and throughout all of human societies for thousands of years, the full rights as a society member are granted based on age."

This is because we make the assumption that mental capacity and age follow hand and hand. It's a bad assumption, but it works 90% of the time, and I'm not saying we redefine it.

Quote :

"the constitutional right to vote is not predicated on intellectual capacity, or IQ tests, or reading comprehension tests, or English language test, or credit checks, or hair and eye color tests, or genetic chromosomal tests, or any other restrictive qualifiers you may wish to impose."

Hopefully after what I just said you will understand that I'm not saying that a poll worker should say "woh woh woh, you look retarded, you can't vote," or "woh, we're going to need to verify your IQ." I'm all for reasonable accommodations. I just don't see someone voting for another person as being reasonable.

Quote :

"now you can go read the United States Constitution before espousing your next round of Nazi interpretations of who can vote and who cant."

Stop the bullshit.

Quote :

"because the architects of this country came from places where all sorts of qualifiers were used to exclude people from self-governance."

They also came from the 1800s.

Quote :

"it comes down to this: when you open the door to require "testing" people as to whether or not they are "qualified" to vote"

Who said anything about "testing?" Who? I certainly didn't.

Quote :

"ook, you're comparing apples to oranges. an adult person of diminished mental capacity is NOT a legal child. a child is NOT a legal adult of diminished mental capacity. you can not compare the two."

It's not apples to oranges. We're comparing two humans. They differ in age only. Like tromboner said, you can most certainly compare the two, and they are compared ALL the time. Legal cases involving mentally handicapped often base their defenses around the defendants limited mental capacity, often comparing them to a person of another age, because many laws use age to define whether you can lock a child up for lock, or if they can go to jail, or if they can be tried as an adult, ect. And those ages are often based on our knowledge about what people at that age are capable of understanding as a whole.

My point is, you can't just say "you can't compare them" while speaking in the confines of the law, because within the confines of the law, they are compared all the time.

Quote :

"for the record, an 18 year old retarded person can leave home and do whatever they want. or enter into a contract. however, their caregiver tries to discourage that as it tends to make their life more difficult."

For the record, retarded people of any age often times don't have power of attorney. The people who take care of them (often times their parents), go to court and protest to have the person's power of attorney. As such, they aren't allowed to enter into a contract. Not to mention that in order to legally enter into a contract, you have to understand the contract. If the person signing the contract don't understand it (through any type of mental incompetence), it's not a valid contract.

11/2/2010 6:51:35 PM

They don't check ID's when you vote. If you do your homework you could easily cast a bunch of votes. Just go take a survey getting names and addresses of people asking if they intend to vote. And honestly that one girls vote was probably more reasoned and insightful than all the tea partier votes.

11/4/2010 8:18:33 AM

Quote :

"for the record, an 18 year old retarded person can leave home and do whatever they want. or enter into a contract. however, their caregiver tries to discourage that as it tends to make their life more difficult."

which is dangerous and bullshit if they don't have the mental capacity. gov't needs to get this straight - either they have or don't have the mental capacity; you can't have it both ways. they have the mental capacity to vote; but not to be responsible for their own actions; they have the mental capacity to enter contracts; but not to be held accountable for crimes.

11/4/2010 8:32:00 AM