http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/24/iraq.main/index.html

Good Lord, what will they think of next? So they're going to have an election, but only a certain percentage of people can vote. Um...?

I'm not an American so forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't it an American constitutional(sp) right for an American citizen to cast a vote during an election?

Strangely enough, the constitution mentions at no point within it that American citizens had the right to vote. It may seem to be implied, but it is not actually in there.

Look here for the complete consitution, from Cornell Law school.

It's a good idea because it would ease the US government's job. People from the parts of Iraq where violence now occurs are more likely to vote for a non-US-friendly candidate, and the US would have to go through the process of stopping him from actually being elected if he got too many votes.

...It's talking about Iraqis not being able to vote in the Iraqi elections supposedly happening next year.

I think it's funny how the administration said it's main purpose in Iraq is to spread democracy and freedom but it's thinking about not allowing maybe up to 3/5 of the population from voting. The UN council which oversees election processes definitely shouldt not go along with this.

Here's a brief history of American's right to vote:

• 1789: First presidential election. none of the public votes in it; electoral college chosen by Legislature.
• 1824: First election where electoral college is chosen in a popular election. Andrew Jackson wins the popular vote, and the election, but litigation sends it to the House of Representatives, which overwhelmingly supports John Quincy Adams.
• 1828: First election where the popular vote actually impacts the election. Andrew Jackson wins in a minor landslide.
• 1868: Fourteenth Amendment to the Consitution guaruntees "equal protection under the law to all US citizens"
• 1870: Fifteenth Amendment to the Consitution prohibits the use of race as a method to bar citizens from voting.
• 1876: Republican Rutherford Hayes, despite having 3% less of the popular vote than Democrat Samuel Tilden, wins the electoral vote 185-184, and becomes president.
• 1880: Closest popular vote ever; Republican James Garfield has but 1,898 more votes (0.02% of the vote) than Democrat Winfield Hancock, but the electoral college shows a much greater gap.
• 1888: In a moderately close election, Republican Benjamin Harrison wins the presidency, despite losing the popular vote by roughly 100,000, because he wins the electoral college.
• 1920: Nineteenth Amendment to the Consitution prehibits gender from being used as a method to bar citizens from voting.
• 1961: Citizens of the District of Columbia (the USA capitol) may vote for president; the district gets 3 electoral votes, the same it would get as if it were a state.
• 1964: Poll taxes are made illegal. They were used to bar poor people (primarily African-Americans) from voting in the South.
• 1971: After the Vietnam War, the voting age is reduced to 18.
• 2000: Despite winning the popular election by roughly 500,000 votes, Al Gore doesn't become president. Bush was given the electoral majority, though it was not legitimate (the final count for the state of Florida revealed that Gore won by ~500 votes; Bush otherwise seriously lost if he didn't have the state). Had the electoral college not been in place, or it didn't favor the (primarily Republican) low-population states, Gore would have had the majority without the need for the Florida Recount.
• 2004: Bush may win the popular election (polls hsow him leading by about 2%), but he's likely to lose the electoral college (very few of the "swing states" are not going for Kerry). After three elections going to the Republicans despite the Democrats winning the popular vote, this could be seen as a nice change.

Any right not mentioned is assumed to be for the people (Amendment X).

Oh...and something about the members of congress and the president being elected by the people of the U.S. makes it fairly clear that not only is it their right to vote, but their duty.

The thing that would ease our government's job the most is if Bush wouldn't hold his nose up so much, admit he was wrong, and ask other nations to help. Heck, by doing this, Spain might put troops back in Iraq, and Germany and France may come on board! I don't think limiting democracy is a good choice to ease the government's job. (it would ease the governmetn's job to declare Bush dictator, and eliminate elections, but does that make it a good idea? Thought so.)

Um... So the US should intervene if, upon installing democracy, finds out that Iraq actually does hate us, instead of considering us their liberators? Something jsut doesn't seem right here. It should be a real democracy if democracy is supposed to be a reason for this whole mess anyway.

You need to...

ACTUALLY READ THE UNITED STATES CONSITUTION!

Since I linked to it, and that didn't seem to be enough, I'll post it here:
The above does imply some power to the people, but puts states as a higher priority.

As for the other part (Look in Article II, section 1, as well as amendment XII):

Elector =! Citizen allowed to vote

If you read Article II, section 1, it states that the president is chosen by "electors" (you would know this as the electoral college). It leaves it up to the state legislators to decide how electors are picked. The fact that most states give their electors to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state doesn't necessarily mean that people have the right to vote; they are merely prohibited from using the barring methods outlined in parts such as Amendments XV, XIX, and XXIV.

Yeah, I guess I've never once, in all the government classes I've taken, have ever read the constitution.

Let's see, the congress is elected by the people, the congress then chooses the electors, electors vote for the president. Am I missing something?

[edit: I forgot to add huge letters so people will listen to me!!!11 ]