Is time for Men to get the right to vote?

[Heloin]

It still shouldn't be a limiting factor on whether or not someone can vote.

It's a way to enforce the law.

It gives people the compulsion to sign up.

No it doesn't. Putting needless restrictions on the franchise only decreases the amount of people voting.

[Genivaria]

Men should be automatically enrolled into voter registration and women should be enrolled into conscription just like men.
Sorry 'selective service'.
Though I'd be happy with a choice between 1 year of military service and 2 years of civilian service.

[Cekoviu]

I'm on board with restricting men's voting rights, just not in the way we're currently doing it -- Selective Service is stupid and shitty in a variety of ways.

[Galloism]

I'm on board with restricting men's voting rights, just not in the way we're currently doing it -- Selective Service is stupid and shitty in a variety of ways.

What do you mean about being on board with restricting men's voting rights?

[Cekoviu]

I'm on board with restricting men's voting rights, just not in the way we're currently doing it -- Selective Service is stupid and shitty in a variety of ways.

What do you mean about being on board with restricting men's voting rights?

Well, in the sense that everybody's voting rights should be restricted (because we should require a year of civilian service + political knowledge tests before people are allowed to vote). Also perhaps in the sense that a man's (of otherwise equal social status) vote should count slightly less than a woman's, though I've been going back and forth on that.

[Galloism]

What do you mean about being on board with restricting men's voting rights?

Well, in the sense that everybody's voting rights should be restricted (because we should require a year of civilian service + political knowledge tests before people are allowed to vote). Also perhaps in the sense that a man's (of otherwise equal social status) vote should count slightly less than a woman's, though I've been going back and forth on that.

Hot take. And why is that?

The second thing, not the first thing.

[Solomons Land]

While I agree that the draft should be abolished, I disagree with the notion in the assertion that men are generally disenfranchised in America. While the draft is sexually discriminatory, it is a very small part of American life. By and large, men and women are treated equally in this country (which is not entirely a good thing.) I would like to see the statistic that shows men are more likely to be prosecuted for crimes in the same circumstances as women. I know there are far more men in jail than women, but men are also far more likely to commit crimes.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2144002

This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences. Most studies control for endogenous severity measures that result from these earlier discretionary processes and use samples that have been winnowed by them. I avoid these problems by using a linked dataset tracing cases from arrest through sentencing. Using decomposition methods, I show that most sentence disparity arises from decisions at the earlier stages, and use the rich data to investigate causal theories for these gender gaps.

It's hard to know exactly how much (which is why I didn't throw a percentage), but women are less likely to be arrested for committing crimes, less likely to face charges if they are, less likely to be convicted, less likely to go to prison IF convicted, and if they do, they receive significantly shorter sentences.

Okay, that article checks out. I guess it is a problem.

[Cekoviu]

Well, in the sense that everybody's voting rights should be restricted (because we should require a year of civilian service + political knowledge tests before people are allowed to vote). Also perhaps in the sense that a man's (of otherwise equal social status) vote should count slightly less than a woman's, though I've been going back and forth on that.

Hot take. And why is that?

The second thing, not the first thing.

It's basically just an extension of the ideas behind affirmative action. Women are underrepresented politically (even if you may argue that they are not oppressed in general -- which is wrong, but irrelevant -- this still appears to be true), and a clear means of counteracting this imbalance would be to increase the sway of women's votes until there is equity in political representation.

Of course, there are downsides to this. For one, misogynistic ideas are present in women, not just men, so this wouldn't necessarily actually create an equal outcome. Also, the exact proportion of female:male vote weighting is difficult to determine and will probably change frequently, so a significant amount of resources might have to be dedicated to this (and this proposal extends not just to gender, but also categories like race, sexual orientation, etc., so this must be factored in). Hence why I'm somewhat wary of wholeheartedly supporting it.

[Bombadil]

I think treating people as cannon fodder first before their equal rights to the vote is pretty harsh. Not like they can't bring in emergency conscription if necessary. This seems an archaic and unfair restriction.

[Galloism]

Hot take. And why is that?

The second thing, not the first thing.

It's basically just an extension of the ideas behind affirmative action. Women are underrepresented politically (even if you may argue that they are not oppressed in general -- which is wrong, but irrelevant -- this still appears to be true), and a clear means of counteracting this imbalance would be to increase the sway of women's votes until there is equity in political representation.

Of course, there are downsides to this. For one, misogynistic ideas are present in women, not just men, so this wouldn't necessarily actually create an equal outcome. Also, the exact proportion of female:male vote weighting is difficult to determine and will probably change frequently, so a significant amount of resources might have to be dedicated to this (and this proposal extends not just to gender, but also categories like race, sexual orientation, etc., so this must be factored in). Hence why I'm somewhat wary of wholeheartedly supporting it.

Given women make up more of the voting share than men, and we're talking expressly about the weight of the vote, wouldn't it be that men are the ones underrepresented politically?

[Cekoviu]

It's basically just an extension of the ideas behind affirmative action. Women are underrepresented politically (even if you may argue that they are not oppressed in general -- which is wrong, but irrelevant -- this still appears to be true), and a clear means of counteracting this imbalance would be to increase the sway of women's votes until there is equity in political representation.

Of course, there are downsides to this. For one, misogynistic ideas are present in women, not just men, so this wouldn't necessarily actually create an equal outcome. Also, the exact proportion of female:male vote weighting is difficult to determine and will probably change frequently, so a significant amount of resources might have to be dedicated to this (and this proposal extends not just to gender, but also categories like race, sexual orientation, etc., so this must be factored in). Hence why I'm somewhat wary of wholeheartedly supporting it.

Given women make up more of the voting share than men, and we're talking expressly about the weight of the vote, wouldn't it be that men are the ones underrepresented politically?

I'm certain that that is not a universally true fact. I'd very much like to see a source.

[Valrifell]

What do you mean about being on board with restricting men's voting rights?

Well, in the sense that everybody's voting rights should be restricted (because we should require a year of civilian service + political knowledge tests before people are allowed to vote).

How easily malleable to instill devotion to the political status quo and resulting stagnation. Barriers to the poll are bad, and instead of making political education a prerequisite to vote we should be educating the topic more broadly through public education.

[Valrifell]

Selective service should be abolished and felons should be allowed to vote.

[Galloism]

Given women make up more of the voting share than men, and we're talking expressly about the weight of the vote, wouldn't it be that men are the ones underrepresented politically?

I'm certain that that is not a universally true fact. I'd very much like to see a source.

It was in the OP, but here -

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/ ... erdiff.pdf

Women have been voting more than men for as long as we've kept track of it. Last time it was really really close was 1964.

Women have had the majority of the political power in our country for over 50 years.

[Cekoviu]

Well, in the sense that everybody's voting rights should be restricted (because we should require a year of civilian service + political knowledge tests before people are allowed to vote).

a. How easily malleable to instill devotion to the political status quo and resulting stagnation. b. Barriers to the poll are bad, and c. instead of making political education a prerequisite to vote we should be educating the topic more broadly through public education.

a. This isn't a problem?
b. Not really - a large proportion of voters are poorly educated about the candidates and issues at hand and do not contribute to their wider community beyond paying taxes and doing their jobs. The former can be fixed with tests and the latter with mandatory service.
c. I don't disagree that better political public education is needed, I simply think we ought to verify that it's working.

[Solomons Land]

What do you mean about being on board with restricting men's voting rights?

Well, in the sense that everybody's voting rights should be restricted (because we should require a year of civilian service + political knowledge tests before people are allowed to vote). Also perhaps in the sense that a man's (of otherwise equal social status) vote should count slightly less than a woman's, though I've been going back and forth on that.

What do you qualify as "civilian service"?

[Cekoviu]

Well, in the sense that everybody's voting rights should be restricted (because we should require a year of civilian service + political knowledge tests before people are allowed to vote). Also perhaps in the sense that a man's (of otherwise equal social status) vote should count slightly less than a woman's, though I've been going back and forth on that.

What do you qualify as "civilian service"?

Military service, volunteering in public education, cleaning up public land (parks, highways, and so forth), volunteering at homeless shelters, that sort of thing.

[Kowani]

Abolish the selective service, end of story, voting rights for all sexes.

[Federal Republic Of America And The Cari]

Yes

[Snakeden]

Selective service should be abolished and felons should be allowed to vote.

This, basically. I never liked the thought that the men I knew had to agree to get told to go die by the people in charge if they... wanted to help decide who was in charge. Like, that just... feels five kinds of wrong, to me.

[Luziyca]

Personally, either everyone should enlist in the Selective Service, or the Americans should get rid of it.

As for prison voting, the only situation we should not let people vote is if they've been convicted of voter fraud.

[Costa Fierro]

The only correct answer to this is abolish the franchise altogether.

[Luziyca]

The only correct answer to this is abolish the franchise altogether.

The only situation in which I will agree with this is if they abolished it so I can become Eternal President/Emperor of Canada/the world. In that case, sure, get rid of the franchise, get rid of all the obstacles to power, so that I can be the Josip Broz Tito, or France-Albert Rene of the Dominion of Canada.

Otherwise, no.

[Solomons Land]

What do you qualify as "civilian service"?

Military service, volunteering in public education, cleaning up public land (parks, highways, and so forth), volunteering at homeless shelters, that sort of thing.

"That sort of thing" has a lot of ambiguity. Does work at a charity count as "civil service"? If so, does working at the local Klan organization count as "civil service"?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What do you qualify as "civilian service"?

Military service, volunteering in public education, cleaning up public land (parks, highways, and so forth), volunteering at homeless shelters, that sort of thing.

I wouldn’t push for military service, but volunteering at different projects and learning about politics and rights prior to be given the right to vote, sound fine to me.