• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Poor not be allowed to vote

Should the Poor not be allowed to vote

  • The poor should be banned from voting

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • The richest 10% should be banned from voting

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • The top 1% should be banned from voting

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Only the middle class should be allowed to vote

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
You do understand that being against more and more government, more and more taxation of those of us who already are carrying the burden for millions who either cannot or will not pay for what they use is not the same as opposing charity or the same as turning our backs on those who are truly needy.

and its the shareholders of a corporation and market demand that should determine executive compensation

im very aware of that but sometimes I think you can be very blunt and it can come off as very harsh to the lower class, probably not intentional but sometimes thats what it looks like.
 
im very aware of that but sometimes I think you can be very blunt and it can come off as very harsh to the lower class, probably not intentional but sometimes thats what it looks like.

I am assuming everyone on this board is wearing their big boy pants or big girl panties
 
I think paraphrasing Heinlein, says it best.
"Something that is free, has no value."

I think everyone should have to earn the privilege of voting and running for public office.
Not through taxes or money'd payments but through community service.
in any electoral campaign, the politicians try to convince the people to go and vote. It's in interest of both (competitors into a campaign) to get the highest number of voters. They please the people to go all and vote.

Think about what we do with a tool like that. We will just push people to don't care at all about the vote.

Vote's value is holy.



Besides it would be consider as anti-voting if poor people wouldn't be able to vote.
Anti-voting presence is found in South Africa. Everytime there are elections, the poor people lead an social movement, a campaign called "No Land, No house, No Vote"
 
not really. the number one cause of poverty is divorce, and number two is failing to marry the other parent of your children in the first place.
source? link?
 
hah - you're lucky. my wife found panties in my clothes drawer and I got in all kinds of trouble :p
 
Honestly, seriously...is anyone REALLY calling for people who are poor to lose the right to vote???
 
you mean hateful & bigoted, as his loathing for the poor as being "parasites", is notorious.

another idiotic post . Parasites are those who demand others pay for them, being poor has no relevance
 
you mean like disabled and paralized veterans of foreign wars? folks like that?

you are batting zero so far in addition to a personal attack

try again

I have already noted that those disabled in the service of this country have paid their dues in full

maybe if you spent a little more time reading rather than trying to pad your post count you would have seen that-it was on a thread you were on
 
you are batting zero so far in addition to a personal attack

try again

I have already noted that those disabled in the service of this country have paid their dues in full...

what about folks who are paralized or disabled due to no fault of their own?

are they also parasites who should not have the right to vote?
 
source? link?

less than 10 percent of married couples with children are poor as compared with about 35 to 40 percent of single-mother families, and once you start looking at the kids the picture becomes even more stark: If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty

According to Pew Research, the most likely causes of falling out of the middle class are:

1. Divorced.
2. Never got Married.
3. Has used Crack.
4. Dropped out of High School.

in particular, it points out that
...The report found that being married helps people avoid the worst economic outcomes. Women who are divorced, widowed or separated are much more likely to fall down the economic ladder than their married counterparts. For men, the differences are not as dramatic, although married men are more likely than single men to retain their middle- class status as adults...


when you look at people who are becoming poor, you are looking at people who are moving contrariwise to the general trend:

income2.bmp


especially given that most people, as they age, move from one income quintile up into the next. studies that focus on individual income earners rather than income quintiles tend to demonstrate much stronger wage growth.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't peg voting rights to income. Perhaps to those who own property. And I would increase the voting age to 21 with the exception of those in the Armed Forces. (They should also be able to drink, imo).
 
you mean like disabled and paralized veterans of foreign wars? folks like that?

most of them can still work. I have plenty of friends who are in the 30-fully% disabled category. hell, I would put some of my guys with one leg up against the OWS punks any day of the week and leverage my bets on them winning 30-1.
 
This thread frightens me a bit. I think I overestimated the progress, good intentions and critical thinking skills of the population a great deal.
 
less than 10 percent of married couples with children are poor as compared with about 35 to 40 percent of single-mother families, and once you start looking at the kids the picture becomes even more stark: If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty

....

especially given that most people, as they age, move from one income quintile up into the next. studies that focus on individual income earners rather than income quintiles tend to demonstrate much stronger wage growth.
Can't argue with that. :shrug: Thanks for the links.
 
its not hyperbole, when folks here are actually discussing stripping the poor and non-property owners of the right to vote.

1. the ability to exercise control over your fellow human beings is not an inherent human right.
2. those who are discussing the modification of the franchise in this thread are doing so because they have specific goals in mind - they want a stable, prosperous, nation in which we are all left to live free. that is the intent behind the modifications you have seen proposed, to throw in any blanket reduction and just declare that it is the same thing is indeed hyperbolic.
 
Can't argue with that. :shrug: Thanks for the links.

:( the worst part is, since it's a social problem, there really isn't much that the state can do.

evanescence said:
I said it shouldn't be pegged to income.

agreed - I think all of those with various economically-centered vote modification schemes in this thread would agree to the simple notion that if a member of the working poor forgoes state subsidization and agrees to pay net taxes, that they would then qualify.
 
I said it shouldn't be pegged to income. Anyone can own property. You definitely don't have to be wealthy.
Requiring ownership of property would strip many of the young and the poor of their right to vote. Such a requirement for voting is just as easy way to eliminate a certain type of person from voting and considering how easy it would be to pass more restrictive laws on property ownership, it's quite easy to see how such a requirement would be incredibly abused.
 
Back
Top Bottom