Why Can't I Vote?

'Cause Your Retarded.

from JoeUser Forums
I work at a home with adults that have physical and mental developmental disabailities. Today during a routine staff meeting the topic of voting was brought up and I was astonished to hear that out of 40 or so residents, only 12 have the right to vote. As the meeting slowly rolled on, and I drifted farthe into a sleepy state, this really started bugging me. As anyone who has ever been friends with people of similar nature know, although by typical standards the clients are labeled as MR, they are far from being stupid, let alone not being able to make an informed decision. The people that I work with are just as effeceted by this election as anyone else who walks this world and I believe more so. Should they not have the right to vote. The government is responsible for the level of care they recieve, the wages of the people that work with them, the food they eat, the insurance they use, and most everything that goes on in their lives. How can they not have a say in who is making these choices for them. They do not have the right to vote! It is still hard for me to comprehend. Voting is something fought for, died for, sacrificed for. We have fought for many years for the right of everyone to cast their vote and I find out to day that there are people out there still opressed by a label. At one point it was poor people, black people, and women. I am ashamed that our society does not let my friends vote. We move forward so much, but still not enough to make everyone equal.
politics
20,693 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
What exactly is different between the 12 with the right to vote and the rest that don't have that right?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The difference between the 12 that have the right to vote and the others that don't is strictly based of guardianship issues. What the difference and why they don't have the right I am not sure.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #2 By: SameOldRat - 10/28/2004 5:42:58 PM
The difference between the 12 that have the right to vote and the others that don't is strictly based of guardianship issues. What the difference and why they don't have the right I am not sure.


If it's a guardianship issue that means they were judged incompetent of handling their own affairs and "someone" was appointed as guardian over them or given "guardianship" over those in question. And *that* is the reason they can't vote. Someone that has been judged incompetent to handle their own affairs shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler,
Then the guardian of that person should be able to cast a vote for that person. Their guardians do everything else for them, why can't they do the voting as well? Maybe that isn't the best solution, but something should be done to make sure that these people's voices are being heard. They are some of the neediest people, especially when considering the amount of government assistance they recieve each year. They are still people, and they are still adults. They have needs. They should be heard, even if it is through another person.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #4 By: LeapingLizard - 10/28/2004 7:53:23 PM
drmiler,
Then the guardian of that person should be able to cast a vote for that person. Their guardians do everything else for them, why can't they do the voting as well?


Because in effect the "same" person would be voting twice. Ain't happening.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Their guardians do everything else for them, why can't they do the voting as well?


Because who's to say that the guardian would vote for the person's choice?  They've been appointed to manage the person's affairs because the person has been deemed incompetent; mentally unable to take care of such things themselves. If the guardian, who's supposed to act in the person's best interests, feels that the person is making the wrong choice with their vote....d'ya see where I'm going with this?


Also, if you argue that the right to vote should be given to adults who are legally incompetent...then I think you have to consider children eligible too. 

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also, if you argue that the right to vote should be given to adults who are legally incompetent


That is the whole point that I am trying to make. These people are labeled on rules that were set up long ago. Many of them are eldery as well as suffering from developmental disabilities. There rights have been taken away, not given away by themselves. Anyone who thinks that these people are incompetent are incompetent themselves.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #7 By: SameOldRat - 10/28/2004 9:07:20 PM
Also, if you argue that the right to vote should be given to adults who are legally incompetent


That is the whole point that I am trying to make. These people are labeled on rules that were set up long ago. Many of them are eldery as well as suffering from developmental disabilities. There rights have been taken away, not given away by themselves. Anyone who thinks that these people are incompetent are incompetent themselves.


You obviously don't know spit! If they are not mentally capable of thinking for themselves Then WHY in God's name should they be able to vote? Argue with the courts!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
then I think you have to consider children eligible too.
fair enough;)
If the guardian, who's supposed to act in the person's best interests, feels that the person is making the wrong choice with their vote....
I agree, but at the same time: how is it a power of attorney can make other decisions?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #9 By: stevendedalus - 10/28/2004 11:19:34 PM
then I think you have to consider children eligible too.
fair enough;)If the guardian, who's supposed to act in the person's best interests, feels that the person is making the wrong choice with their vote....
I agree, but at the same time: how is it a power of attorney can make other decisions?


Because with a power of attorney it is given *by* the person to another. Not granted by a court. POA means you have to be of "sound" mind in the first place, because you have figure out what powers you will give to the other. But even so you cannot give POA over your vote.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
interesting topic and I'm not really sure how I feel about this one. Can alzheimiers (sp?) patients vote? Or where else is a cut off made making someone incompetent to vote. Clearly many mentally handicapped people may be much more informed to vote than other so-called competent people in our nation.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: Suspeckted - 10/29/2004 10:34:29 AM
interesting topic and I'm not really sure how I feel about this one. Can alzheimiers (sp?) patients vote? Or where else is a cut off made making someone incompetent to vote.


The cut off is made by the courts. And courts alone may judge someone incompetent.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because who's to say that the guardian would vote for the person's choice?




Well, yeah. But who's to say anything about anything that these people do. For all we know, a guardian could let someone in their care die, abuse them, etc. Guardians have the responsibility fo taking care of things in the best interest of those they guard. Whether or not they really do this is never clear, but nevertheless, it's their responsibility in every other facet of another person's life. Why should it stop at casting a vote?



Then WHY in God's name should they be able to vote?

Becasue they are affected by the decisions made by the government. Someone needs to make sure that their interests are being met, whether it be themselves, or someone acting in their best interests. And again, if that person chooses to be dishonorable and abuse there power, then shame on them, but that's life. It happens all the time, and the solution isn't just to take away the right for a vote to be cast.



You obviously don't know spit!

How do you know what he knows? I can't stand insults like this that get thrown all around JU.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Somethings up with the formatting...not sure what the deal is. Sorry about the confusing quoting!

ll
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #13 By: LeapingLizard - 10/29/2004 6:16:03 PM
Because who's to say that the guardian would vote for the person's choice?




Well, yeah. But who's to say anything about anything that these people do. For all we know, a guardian could let someone in their care die, abuse them, etc. Guardians have the responsibility fo taking care of things in the best interest of those they guard. Whether or not they really do this is never clear, but nevertheless, it's their responsibility in every other facet of another person's life. Why should it stop at casting a vote?



Then WHY in God's name should they be able to vote?


Becasue they are affected by the decisions made by the government. Someone needs to make sure that their interests are being met, whether it be themselves, or someone acting in their best interests. And again, if that person chooses to be dishonorable and abuse there power, then shame on them, but that's life. It happens all the time, and the solution isn't just to take away the right for a vote to be cast.


Because they are mentally incapable of doing it for themselves and what your talking (having someone do it for them) about is NOT allowed by LAW!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #13 By: LeapingLizard - 10/29/2004 6:16:03 PM
Because who's to say that the guardian would vote for the person's choice?




Well, yeah. But who's to say anything about anything that these people do. For all we know, a guardian could let someone in their care die, abuse them, etc. Guardians have the responsibility fo taking care of things in the best interest of those they guard. Whether or not they really do this is never clear, but nevertheless, it's their responsibility in every other facet of another person's life. Why should it stop at casting a vote?


BTW We have no say actually whether or not someone is doing their job as guardian. Only the court can do something about it!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW We have no say actually whether or not someone is doing their job as guardian. Only the court can do something about it!


Yeah, drmiler, I get it.

The courts, the courts, the courts. It's all about the courts. My point is that the courts are wrong.

ll
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #17 By: LeapingLizard - 10/31/2004 10:26:43 PM
BTW We have no say actually whether or not someone is doing their job as guardian. Only the court can do something about it!


Yeah, drmiler, I get it.

The courts, the courts, the courts. It's all about the courts. My point is that the courts are wrong.

ll


If we're still talking about voting? Having someone else vote for you is actually against federal law
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler, you really have a problem with the idea of anyone having the right to an opinion don't you! Black people were once considered incapable of managing their own affairs too. I'd call that an error of judgment. The mentally ill have long faced marginalisation, and while this is improving, we have a long way to go. This highlights the way the Republican party believes in democracy...for some. But let me guess drmiler, I don't have the right to express that opinion without casting aspersions upon the entire nation of America.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #19 By: Champas Socialist - 11/1/2004 3:39:17 AM
Drmiler, you really have a problem with the idea of anyone having the right to an opinion don't you! Black people were once considered incapable of managing their own affairs too. I'd call that an error of judgment. The mentally ill have long faced marginalisation, and while this is improving, we have a long way to go. This highlights the way the Republican party believes in democracy...for some. But let me guess drmiler, I don't have the right to express that opinion without casting aspersions upon the entire nation of America.


What's this we shit? Obviously you haven't read the entire blog. So until you do maybe you should be quiet. Actually I believe you are the one with the problem not me.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we're still talking about voting? Having someone else vote for you is actually against federal law


drmiller,

Yes, we are still talking about voting. Yes, I know that it is against federal law to have someone else vote for you. I think we all get that, since the original blog stated that some of the people that Rat works with were not going to be allowed to vote. The laws are wrong. Legal guardians of the people with disabilities should have the right to cast a vote for them. And, again, yes, I know that is against the law NOW. It should be changed. The guardians are responsible for everything else in these people lives, and that responsibility should not exclude casting a vote to represent these people. I see the problems that could be associated with this idea (starting but not limited to dishonest people), but despite those problems, people with disabilities, no mateer how severe, are still affected by the government and so should still be heard.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #21 By: LeapingLizard - 11/1/2004 9:27:29 AM
If we're still talking about voting? Having someone else vote for you is actually against federal law


drmiller,

Yes, we are still talking about voting. Yes, I know that it is against federal law to have someone else vote for you. I think we all get that, since the original blog stated that some of the people that Rat works with were not going to be allowed to vote. The laws are wrong. Legal guardians of the people with disabilities should have the right to cast a vote for them. And, again, yes, I know that is against the law NOW. It should be changed. The guardians are responsible for everything else in these people lives, and that responsibility should not exclude casting a vote to represent these people. I see the problems that could be associated with this idea (starting but not limited to dishonest people), but despite those problems, people with disabilities, no mateer how severe, are still affected by the government and so should still be heard.


Well lets start with if the person doesn't have the mental facilties to take control of their own life why do you then believe that they have the mental capacity do understand what the candidates stand for, let alone what each is talking about. Or the abilty to articulate their choice to a guardian? And the reason it will never be changed is because no one will be able to be 100% sure that they are voting the way their charge wants and not what the guardian thinks is right. The laws are correct and should stand the way they are.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well lets start with if the person doesn't have the mental facilties to take control of their own life why do you then believe that they have the mental capacity do understand what the candidates stand for, let alone what each is talking about. Or the abilty to articulate their choice to a guardian? And the reason it will never be changed is because no one will be able to be 100% sure that they are voting the way their charge wants and not what the guardian thinks is right. The laws are correct and should stand the way they are.


I agree. We are talking about people that can't even pay their own bills. I do see the point that is trying to be made, but who is going to insure that the vote being made on the persons behalf is the vote the person wanted made. In many cases as far as persons in a nursing home or a home for the disabled, if the person expresses the wish to vote, they can, as long as they are menally fit to do so. In order to be mentaly disabled, you must have an IQ of 84 or less

IQ Classifications in Clinical Psychiatric Use

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)
American Psychiatric Association, 1994

Borderline Intellectual Functioning IQ 71-84
Mild Mental Retardation IQ 50-55 to approximately 70
Moderate Retardation IQ 35-40 to 50-55
Severe Mental Retardation IQ 20-25 to 35-40
Profound Mental Retardation IQ below 20 or 25
Link
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

If it's a guardianship issue that means they were judged incompetent of handling their own affairs and "someone" was appointed as guardian over them or given "guardianship" over those in question. And *that* is the reason they can't vote. Someone that has been judged incompetent to handle their own affairs shouldn't be allowed to vote.


drmiler is absolutely correct. As one who managed group homes for DD adults for 5 1/2 years, this issue arose repeatedly. Some individuals who had the right to vote would vote absentee and bring their ballots to staff to help them fill out.


The fact is, even many of the higher functioning DD adults are extremely prone to the suggestions of staff members of whom they are especially fond. While most that vote do make informed, intelligent decisions, the fact is, granting the right to vote to many who don't currently have them would lead to a LOT of extra votes for group home staff...given the fact that many such staff tend to vote democratic, I'm surprised the DNC hasn't pressed this issue further.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

That is the whole point that I am trying to make. These people are labeled on rules that were set up long ago. Many of them are eldery as well as suffering from developmental disabilities. There rights have been taken away, not given away by themselves. Anyone who thinks that these people are incompetent are incompetent themselves


Actually issues such as competency are reviewed frequently, and the new rules apply to the competency review hearings. You would be surprised at the bureaucracy involved with many of these individuals. If someone feels they are competent to be their own guardian, they have the right to demand a review hearing, and these rights are posted in every CBRF and Adult Family Home that is licensed within each state (they're legally required to display these documents). I understand the reason for the questions you are asking, but you must realize that MOST (not all, that's another story about the injustice of the system and why I no longer work in that field), of the individuals declared incompetent have been declared as such for very good reasons.