Are people with afflictions not people?
Taking the vote from people with a mental illness is terrible, because it's such a general term. One could argue that alcoholism is a mental illness, should they not vote? Should pedophiles not vote?
Who's to say we're sane?
Everybody has problems.
Would they be able to vote once they had overcome the illness?

To take away somebody's right to vote because of a problem they most likely can't control, is absurd, and is basicly spitting in the face of the general public because so damn many people have mental health issues at some point (i don't remember the exact figures, but i think it's somewhere in %20 range. In my country anyway, and i'd say it's much the same everywhere else).

krackerjack Wrote: To take away somebody's right to vote because of a problem they most likely can't control, is absurd, and is basicly spitting in the face of the general public because so damn many people have mental health issues at some point (i don't remember the exact figures, but i think it's somewhere in %20 range. In my country anyway, and i'd say it's much the same everywhere else).

How would you feel, if you found out that someone got elected by one vote and that that one vote came from someone suffering from dementia?

Personally, I wouldn't let them vote. If they cannot think clearly, then they cannot vote clearly. Thus, they shouldn't vote.

I would feel just as i would if that person was perfectly sane.
A person is a person, and a vote is a vote.
Deciding whose vote counts more than others is ludicrous.
It's pretty much, in my eyes, stripping away the rights of people as desired, just because they have a mental illness.

If you're going to take away the right of somebody with a mentel illness to vote, you might as well take away their right to a fair trial.

Do you consider someone who does not even know how to go to the toilet still a person? Or know how to eat, talk, act or think?

A human without his mind is no longer a person. Therefore, he should not be allowed to vote.

Deadhead Wrote: Do you consider someone who does not even know how to go to the toilet still a person? Or know how to eat, talk, act or think? A human without his mind is no longer a person. Therefore, he should not be allowed to vote.

Yes i do.
By your logic, if those people are no longer people, they have no purpose. Should the things all just be terminated?

People always use the 5 percent to justify their argument, and ignore the other 95 percent that the issue affects.
Just like abortion, thats a great case of the same thing. Everybody always uses the "but what about rape and incest?" line, which only jusifies 5 percent of abortion. What about the other 95 percent that kill their children because it interferes with their lifestyles? It's much the same with your argument. You used the few to justify a rule or law that would apply to the many.
(sorry to go off topic but i was demonstrating a point there)

Besides, if somebody didn't "know how to eat, talk, act or think" then they wouldn't be voting anyway, so that's kind of a moot point.

Those of sound mind/judgement should be the ones voting.

But the problem I foresee is the people who determine who is fit to vote being corrupted.

ShingoEX Wrote: Those of sound mind/judgement should be the ones voting.

krackerjack, what I meant to say was that someone who suffers from severe dementia (like in the first post) should not be allowed to vote.

There are of course, those who can control it with medication, they may be allowed to vote.

I'm not saying that ever person that has a mental disease needs to be banned from voting, only the worst cases. I don't know if this already like this in the U.S. but if it isn't, it should be.

Oh, and about the off-topic, I would agree with those 5% that say "what about incest and rape". Rape and incest are horrible things, and finding out that you're pregnant afterwards is even worse, could you blame them for wanting an abortion then?

I agree about those people who just get an abortion because it "doesn't fit with their life". They shouldn't be able to get an abortion, but then again, if they don't, they'll find a way to get rid of their child.

However, I feel like I've gone a bit too much off-topic so I'll end here

They still pay taxes don't they?

Although thats not saying much since some 14-17 year old pay taxes as well

LoganMK Wrote: They still pay taxes don't they? Although thats not saying much since some 14-17 year old pay taxes as well

That's a good point...when you think about it, taxing 14-17 year olds is taxation without representation, which was one of the main reasons the US left England.

Anyway, it's hard to say on this issue. That article said that the dewmentia patient thought it was 1942 and FDR was president...but if you vote for every office on the ballot, can you even name every candidate running before you enter the voting booth, let alone know their positions on the issues? (I'm referring to the AVERAGE voter here, not those who are very politically aware).

I would say that if you can name the candidates running for the highest offices listed on the ballot, you should be able to vote (assuming, of course, you're old enough, and registered).

i dont see why they shouldn't be al;oud to vote, they would probably make more rational decisions then some of the "normal" people. Guess im just biased i hate bush lol, and yes i know hate is a strong word.

No, for the same reason they shouldn't be allowed to drive, it affects other peoples lives too significantly.

Of course they shouldn't be allowed! This is true for the same reason you wouldn't let a child vote. They can't grasp adult concepts. If somebody is siverely retarded, then they shouldn't vote. In the artical it said that the mans wife voted for him. She just got two votes. He's not awhere of what she's doing! He has the mental acuity of a child. He thought it was 1942!
I know this is off topic... But the abortion thing. If some girls thirteen or fourteen and has sex, the kid she has is going to have an awful life... and while we're on the topic of mental retardation, does the girl who got pregnant even old enough to understand what having a kid means? She can't do it leagaly.


What? People who support bush have rational reasons for liking him even if you don't agree with them.

supertim1 Wrote: i dont see why they shouldn't be al;oud to vote, they would probably make more rational decisions then some of the "normal" people. Guess im just biased i hate bush lol, and yes i know hate is a strong word.

Of course they shouldn't be allowed! This is true for the same reason you wouldn't let a child vote. They can't grasp adult concepts. If somebody is siverely retarded, then they shouldn't vote. In the artical it said that the mans wife voted for him. She just got two votes. He's not awhere of what she's doing! He has the mental acuity of a child. He thought it was 1942!
I know this is off topic... But the abortion thing. If some girls thirteen or fourteen and has sex, the kid she has is going to have an awful life... and while we're on the topic of mental retardation, does the girl who got pregnant even old enough to understand what having a kid means? She can't do it leagaly.


What? People who support bush have rational reasons for liking him even if you don't agree with them.

supertim1 Wrote: i dont see why they shouldn't be al;oud to vote, they would probably make more rational decisions then some of the "normal" people. Guess im just biased i hate bush lol, and yes i know hate is a strong word.

Of course they shouldn't be allowed! This is true for the same reason you wouldn't let a child vote. They can't grasp adult concepts. If somebody is siverely retarded, then they shouldn't vote. In the artical it said that the mans wife voted for him. She just got two votes. He's not awhere of what she's doing! He has the mental acuity of a child. He thought it was 1942!
I know this is off topic... But the abortion thing. If some girls thirteen or fourteen and has sex, the kid she has is going to have an awful life... and while we're on the topic of mental retardation, does the girl who got pregnant even old enough to understand what having a kid means? She can't do it leagaly.


What? People who support bush have rational reasons for liking him even if you don't agree with them.

supertim1 Wrote: i dont see why they shouldn't be al;oud to vote, they would probably make more rational decisions then some of the "normal" people. Guess im just biased i hate bush lol, and yes i know hate is a strong word.