Can People with Asperger's Syndrome Vote why or why not than

Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

mikecartwright
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 398

21 Aug 2011, 9:56 am

Can People with Asperger's Syndrome Vote why or why not thank you ?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Aug 2011, 9:59 am

I haven't heard of any rules saying they couldn't, and they tend to otherwise fit into the categories of people that could.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,038
Location: temperate zone

21 Aug 2011, 10:10 am

Aspies are certainly capable of being opiniated and partisan.

But no there are no rules against aspies ( or ADD sufferers, or tourettes sufferers, or dyslexics, or any other neurologically deviant individuals from voting).

Incarcerated felons ( regardless of their neurological status) cant vote.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

21 Aug 2011, 10:44 am

Can.

Do.

Probabilitry says neither more nor less wisely or effectively than anyone else.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

21 Aug 2011, 10:50 am

It's just that the autistic votes do not count.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

21 Aug 2011, 11:03 am

I can and I have.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

21 Aug 2011, 11:28 am

Have you ever heard of a politician courting the autistic vote?



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

21 Aug 2011, 12:44 pm

"Courting the autistic vote"??

Even using the biggest scare statistics available, and casting the net as widely as possible, the "autistic vote" would be only slightly more than 1% of the general vote. No politician is going to cater to such a tiny group, unless of course they're making major campaign contributions as well. We can lobby to have our voice heard, once we've decided who we want lobbying on our behalf, but you're never going to hear a major political speech about our issues.

As for whether we can, well, in the US at least, you merely have to be a citizen, of the age of 18 or more, not a convicted felon (in most jurisdictions - in some places, after serving your sentence, it's possible to get your franchise back), and alive. There are no neurological requirements, no IQ tests (as a cursory glance at Congress should tell you), no gender restrictions, no income requirements - heck, you don't even have to be sane!


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

22 Aug 2011, 8:18 am

What is scary is that there generally is no restriction on the right to vote based on mental ability.

I suppose if you are ruled to be incompetent, you would lose the right to vote, but there is a wide gulf between being incapable of making a sound choice about who should hold an office and being "incompetent."

My mom did some work for the Democratic Party in 2008. She helped a mentally retarded man register to vote. I had issues with that because if it was a matter that he could not read or write, the voter registrar's office would have helped him with that. If he could not understand the questions on the application, I would say he is not competent to cast a ballot and should not be voting.

Courts ruled that tests could not be mandated to be allowed to vote. Seeing where we are going as a nation, I think that was a bad decision cast for a bad reason. Yeah, the south was using tests to keep blacks from being able to vote, but the idea that anyone who is able to walk in and pick from a list doesn't constitute having capacity to exercise a vote.

Heck, I see normally intelligent people become blathering idiots when it comes to election politics, and I question the danger of allowing these people the ability to vote.

Yes, I'm aware some of you would say the same about me.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2011, 8:21 am

androbot2084 wrote:
It's just that the autistic votes do not count.


Yes they do. It is autistics who don't count.

ruveyn



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,397
Location: Stendec

22 Aug 2011, 8:45 am

mikecartwright wrote:
Can People with Asperger's Syndrome Vote why or why not thank you ?

Yes.

There is no law against it.

I have AS and I vote.


_________________
TRE45ON!!
Anyone attempting to argue in defense of Donald Trump automatically loses the argument.


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

22 Aug 2011, 8:52 am

zeronetgain:

if people who cannot adequately reason or understand what the issues are were not allowed to vote, the Powers would have to devise a new system.

The whole of American politics is designed to minimize the effect of informed thought.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

22 Aug 2011, 9:34 am

Philologos wrote:
zeronetgain:

if people who cannot adequately reason or understand what the issues are were not allowed to vote, the Powers would have to devise a new system.

The whole of American politics is designed to minimize the effect of informed thought.


Likely true, but I find it amazing the ignorance of the history of suffrage in America.

The Founders didn't allow non-property owners to vote. There was a darn good reason for this as the property owner was the most directly affected by government choices. It's easy for someone with nothing to lose to support government programs that hands them something of value at someone else's expense.

Women could not vote...largely because women did not own property. I agree that gender is no reason to deny voting rights, but I would have preferred they reserved it to property owners...or gave the property owner more votes (2:1) than a non-property owner.

Minorities could not vote. Again, this is wrong when it's solely based on ethnicity.

The problem in saying everyone should vote is that there is no balance to prevent what the founders saw as the inherent flaw of democracies (hence why America is a Republic, not a democracy)...when the populace realizes they can vote themselves largess from the treasury, elections become all about picking the person who promises the masses the largest chunk of the pie and not about what is good governance for the present and future generations.



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

23 Aug 2011, 5:17 am

Sometimes not. I try to keep track of what Paul S. Appelbaum is up to next in the conflict between Mental Health Law taking priority over Constitutional Rights or not. An older short article is: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19 ... 1p892F+R5w

Most articles want $$$ on a google search of '"Paul S. Appelbaum" voting autistics' and books-dot-google '"Paul S. Appelbaum" voting' One long one is: http://www.sabeusa.org/user_storage/gov ... 20Vote.pdf
with North Carolina's law including autism specifically on page 58, with just about every other impairment. And a paragraph at: http://www.autismpolicyblog.com/2010/03 ... oting.html

I've had more problems voting because my middle name is too long for many government computers and the now often mandatory photo ID cards.

Tadzio

P.S.: on page 3, with more sources listed: http://www.moadvocacy.org/ALLIANCE%201-3.pdf



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,988
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

24 Aug 2011, 6:22 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Philologos wrote:
zeronetgain:

if people who cannot adequately reason or understand what the issues are were not allowed to vote, the Powers would have to devise a new system.

The whole of American politics is designed to minimize the effect of informed thought.


Likely true, but I find it amazing the ignorance of the history of suffrage in America.

The Founders didn't allow non-property owners to vote. There was a darn good reason for this as the property owner was the most directly affected by government choices. It's easy for someone with nothing to lose to support government programs that hands them something of value at someone else's expense.

Women could not vote...largely because women did not own property. I agree that gender is no reason to deny voting rights, but I would have preferred they reserved it to property owners...or gave the property owner more votes (2:1) than a non-property owner.

Minorities could not vote. Again, this is wrong when it's solely based on ethnicity.

The problem in saying everyone should vote is that there is no balance to prevent what the founders saw as the inherent flaw of democracies (hence why America is a Republic, not a democracy)...when the populace realizes they can vote themselves largess from the treasury, elections become all about picking the person who promises the masses the largest chunk of the pie and not about what is good governance for the present and future generations.


Well, guess what? I don't own property (other than my car), and I do vote. As a matter of fact, I do have as much a stake in this country as a property owner - I live here. On top of that, I have a child, whose future is of importance to me - that also gives me another stake in our society. So I want the very best for my country.
And by the way, people who risk their lives for the sake of their country by joining the military are often from the non-property owning underclass - are you seriously going to forbid them the right to vote after their sacrifice?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Oort
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Maine, USA

26 Aug 2011, 1:26 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Philologos wrote:
zeronetgain:

if people who cannot adequately reason or understand what the issues are were not allowed to vote, the Powers would have to devise a new system.

The whole of American politics is designed to minimize the effect of informed thought.


Likely true, but I find it amazing the ignorance of the history of suffrage in America.

The Founders didn't allow non-property owners to vote. There was a darn good reason for this as the property owner was the most directly affected by government choices. It's easy for someone with nothing to lose to support government programs that hands them something of value at someone else's expense.

Women could not vote...largely because women did not own property. I agree that gender is no reason to deny voting rights, but I would have preferred they reserved it to property owners...or gave the property owner more votes (2:1) than a non-property owner.

Minorities could not vote. Again, this is wrong when it's solely based on ethnicity.

The problem in saying everyone should vote is that there is no balance to prevent what the founders saw as the inherent flaw of democracies (hence why America is a Republic, not a democracy)...when the populace realizes they can vote themselves largess from the treasury, elections become all about picking the person who promises the masses the largest chunk of the pie and not about what is good governance for the present and future generations.


Well, guess what? I don't own property (other than my car), and I do vote. As a matter of fact, I do have as much a stake in this country as a property owner - I live here. On top of that, I have a child, whose future is of importance to me - that also gives me another stake in our society. So I want the very best for my country.
And by the way, people who risk their lives for the sake of their country by joining the military are often from the non-property owning underclass - are you seriously going to forbid them the right to vote after their sacrifice?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Very well said. 8 million people live in the New York City area, by my rough estimate, maybe 2% of them actually own a piece of that area. You are going to say that 98% of that group matters less than 2%? If the government did exactly that, and it was 2:1 ratio of landowner votes to non landowner votes, then the rich would become richer, and the poor would die on the streets. There would be a revolution, and America would go down in flames. Im so glad that you would have this future.