[h4nkoslo]

Voting isn't some fuzzy cost-free civic participation ritual, it is an exercise of power (or more accurately, a demonstration of power in lieu of its exercise). If you want to be ruled by someone who cannot figure out the mail, or cannot manage their affairs enough to sustain employment, can't get the same ID they use for any other institutional interaction they'd want to do, or doesn't speak the language of the people they're ruling, OK I guess, but a sane society does not. The less correspondence between what the voting pool desires and what those who pay for / enforce / submit to be regulated by their schemes do, the less reason there is for them to obey the results of the election.

You aren't upset about the technical nuances of proof-of-residency requirements for people who move the week before the election; you're literally making a moral claim to be ruled by the retarded as long as there's enough of them.

[rhallie15]

Nah, I'm just aware of the fact that there are people disenfranchised by the current registration process who deserve the option to voice their opinion just as much as anyone else.

[h4nkoslo]

The point is to disenfranchise them, because they should not exercise power.

If it's about "voicing their opinion", cool, they can say what they want, even in a non-election year. The thing about an "election", though, in the current regime, is that it imposes consequences on other people. If you just want civic ritual and a mascot to cheer for, turn on ESPN.

[rhallie15]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/02/u-s-voter-tu...

[rhallie15]

Also,

> Voting isn't some fuzzy cost-free civic participation ritual

Yes. It literally is.

[h4nkoslo]

Policies, decided by elections, have costs and consequences. Educate yourself.

[rhallie15]

Yes. And disenfranchised people need policies make the country better for them too.