this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
307 points (96.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35709 readers
2337 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Article III Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution currently reads, "Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district."

After Tuesday's vote, the article will now read, "Only a United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district."

Doesn't this change the meaning of the statement so much that it's no longer true that every citizen of age who is a resident is eligible to vote? Can this new language be interpreted by courts and lawmakers such that anyone can be disenfranchised if such malicious laws can be passed in the state?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Voting in the United States has always been primarily a way to protect the power of already powerful people, and secondarily a way to ensure incremental social progress continues at a pace that doesn't make powerful people too uncomfortable.

A lot of things about the way things are structured in US democracy make more sense with that context, including this, I think.

Specifically, 70% of people both eligible and motivated to vote, voted to ensure eligibility to vote is not extended. This has happened many times throughout history, and only seems odd if we accept the fib that everyone is represented.

In the context of gerrandering, first-past-the-poll "representation", and various other forms of disenfranchisement; it makes sense that 70% of the people allowed to actually vote, votes in favor of continuing to restrict the vote (to themselves).

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The way I read it, yes they did choose to restrict the vote to themselves, but at the same time they removed the guarantee of the vote to themselves.

The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago

The guarantee they enjoyed is no longer expressed in the constitution. Or am I missing something?

Yeah. I'm not saying it was wise, by any means!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

no. you didn't miss anything.

wisconsin gonna wisconsin. voted in a diaper, twice, too. i wish i could afford to leave this state.