• 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
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

how does stripping the poor of their right to vote, ensure freedom for all Americans?
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't see how placing that restriction on voting would place further restrictions on property ownership. My position is a hypothetical. What if people who had more of a stake in the country were allowed to vote as opposed to those who would rather not have goals to prosper? I own property, and i am young AND nowhere near wealthy. I had to work and save to earn that right. When I vote, I want someone in office who will protect those rights.
 
why would we want to reduce the number of Americans who have the right to vote?

who would want such a thing?
 
Thunder said:
how does stripping the poor of their right to vote, ensure freedom for all Americans?
Click to expand...

by not making an artificial incentive for the creation of dependency and redistributor classes that live off of limiting the freedom of others. the incentive structure instead is left for the state to intrude upon us less.
 
Higgins86 said:
they tried that already Bush vs Al Gore....oh no he didnt
Click to expand...

Buchanan appreciated their votes

the dems should have told them to vote for GORE rather than PUNCH LINE TWO!!
 
lpast said:
Or should the top 10% not be allowed to vote, since their money influences all politics. I laugh at certain forum posters who say that the poor shouldnt be allowed to vote because they only vote for who is going to give them something...that is one of the most disgustingly disengenuous statements ever uttered on this foru...because the RICH vote for who is going to give them something and they PAY them millions to do it for them in lobbiests cash and gifts to superpacs...its hypocrisy to the ooomph degree.
Click to expand...

Neither should unmarried women be allowed to vote.
 
Kali said:
Of course not! They should be rounded up and killed:roll::roll:

Should animal abusing bitches be allowed to vote? I say hell no!
Click to expand...

:lamo Is that supposed to be an actual response to a serious question? because it fails on so many levels. Try not to make it so personal, hun.

Keeping in mind that many states already have laws against it. That's why i posed the question.
 
evanescence said:
:lamo Is that supposed to be an actual response to a serious question? because it fails on so many levels. Try not to make it so personal, hun.

Keeping in mind that many states already have laws against it. That's why i posed the question.
Click to expand...

I deleted it.. But you are the one that made it personal, hon........ BTW, save that fake hon crap for someone who you like.

I do feel mentally handicapped should be able to vote if they are mentally competent.. Why should they not be allowed their right?
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Irrelevant if they do it or not, they CAN. Under your "plebeian system" they could not without preforming some sort of service.
Click to expand...

It's not a plebeian system.

Blackdog said:
Taxation is necessary for our government to fulfill it's role and service to the people, nice appeal to spite. Forced community service for guaranteed rights protected under the Constitution are not.
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to vote, at the federal level.
I know most people don't digest this well, because they have to do something to get something.
 
cpwill said:
:D "Service Guarantees Citizenship" great book.
Click to expand...

I actually don't agree that military service should ensure the privilege of voting.
Military pays pretty good wages and benefits.

Not sure on that yet though.

cpwill said:
De Toqueville wrote about how early American communities would often come together to provide public support for those who were suffering, but would then not allow them to vote, the argument being that you have just created a class whose incentive will always be to vote themselves more benefits from others.

In the past I've called for some basic poll testing - simple stuff like "Name the three branches of government". You could draw the questions from the citizenship exam; which you could also make High School Seniors take in order to get high school diplomas and vote for the rest of their lives. I wouldn't be totally opposed to restoring our original link between going on public assistance and the exercise of the franchise - in fact, it would make me much more comfortable with the notion of supporting others, as I would know that they would lack the ability to turn an attempt to provide a good into a public danger.
Click to expand...

Poll testing doesn't really provide a net public good.
I'd like to see both left, right and center working together to get the road sides cleaned up.
 
Last edited:
The amount of money one makes should have no bearing on their ability to vote.
 
The last time this came up it was declared Unconstitutional and called racist from sea to shining sea, and it still is.

Where do people get these ideas to try to incite people with old antiquated ideas that failed in the past.

People who think up these polls ahould be banned from everything.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I actually don't agree that military service should ensure the privilege of voting.
Military pays pretty good wages and benefits.

Not sure on that yet though.
Click to expand...

it depends on where you are at in the military. if you're on the lower end of the enlisted ranks, your "compensation" is mostly the fact that you live in the barracks, eat at the chow hall, and have a medic/corpsman on hand if you break a bone. the government counts half of a barracks room (think, dorm room at college, but not as nice) as the financial equivalent of a two to three bedroom apartment, so I'm not positive that "compensation" is being judged accurately. field grade officers, senior SNCO's and up do pretty well, considering - but generally speaking at that point they can leave the military to generously increase their pay.

as for making it a voting requirement? :shrug: the logic was simply that you should be required to demonstrate your willingness to put the good of the nation ahead of your own before you should be allowed to control that nation. I would imagine there would be alot of fields (police, fire fighters) who fall under the same premise.

Poll testing doesn't really provide a net public good.
Click to expand...

you don't consider bumping up our electorate to where it is at least semi-educated and semi-aware a public good?

I'd like to see both left, right and center working together to get the road sides cleaned up.
Click to expand...

and then we can all hold hands and buy the world a coke, but until then perhaps we should have a better selection structure.
 
cpwill said:
it depends on where you are at in the military. if you're on the lower end of the enlisted ranks, your "compensation" is mostly the fact that you live in the barracks, eat at the chow hall, and have a medic/corpsman on hand if you break a bone. the government counts half of a barracks room (think, dorm room at college, but not as nice) as the financial equivalent of a two to three bedroom apartment, so I'm not positive that "compensation" is being judged accurately. field grade officers, senior SNCO's and up do pretty well, considering - but generally speaking at that point they can leave the military to generously increase their pay.

as for making it a voting requirement? :shrug: the logic was simply that you should be required to demonstrate your willingness to put the good of the nation ahead of your own before you should be allowed to control that nation. I would imagine there would be alot of fields (police, fire fighters) who fall under the same premise.
Click to expand...

I understand, and it's not because I hate the military or anything like that, but there would be a great deal of argument on if they actually qualified as contributing.
Because in many ways it's a job and they get paid for it.

cpwill said:
you don't consider bumping up our electorate to where it is at least semi-educated and semi-aware a public good?
Click to expand...

I'd rather a lot of these oh so precious individuals, get their hands dirty doing some work. :mrgreen:

cpwill said:
and then we can all hold hands and buy the world a coke, but until then perhaps we should have a better selection structure.
Click to expand...

It isn't meant to "unite" people but to put them to work.
So they could "earn" their voice.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand, and it's not because I hate the military or anything like that, but there would be a great deal of argument on if they actually qualified as contributing.
Because in many ways it's a job and they get paid for it.
Click to expand...

eh, that's a debate for another day. I could probably get just under triple my pay if I went private sector (which is one of the reasons that after this tou I probably will).

I'd rather a lot of these oh so precious individuals, get their hands dirty doing some work. :mrgreen:



It isn't meant to "unite" people but to put them to work.
So they could "earn" their voice.
Click to expand...

hmm. well, i'm down for workfare. perhaps we could offer dual systems - welfare and workfare, but if you choose welfare no votey.
 
Here is why this poll and the people boo hooing about poor people getting to vote need to chill out. First, it's a democracy. Second according to Websters:

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Essentially what people such as Turtledude is asking for is a warped form of the democracy our founding fathers wanted, one that will never happen.
 
well, that is probably because we don't have a democracy, John. We have a representative republic, and with good reason.

Partly for the precise reason under discussion; as Benjamin Franklin put it: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Any time you set up the circumstances where a majority of voters can decide to give themselves largess that they take from a minority voters, you are setting up a massive incentive for them to do so, a massive incentive for worthless politicians to find a way to justify it, and a massive incentive on the part of the Lamb to either get out of dodge or invest in some weaponry and challenge the vote.

as for the how the founders viewed the franchise - they left it up to the states. some had more restrictions, some less.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not a plebeian system.
Click to expand...

A rose by any other name.

Harry Guerrilla said:
There is no constitutional right to vote, at the federal level.
I know most people don't digest this well, because they have to do something to get something.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about just the Federal level? Nice dodge.

People should not be forced to do anything to have a say in the government of the country, state or community they live. It has to do with the whole taxation without representation thing.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Here is why this poll and the people boo hooing about poor people getting to vote need to chill out. First, it's a democracy. Second according to Websters:

1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Essentially what people such as Turtledude is asking for is a warped form of the democracy our founding fathers wanted, one that will never happen.
Click to expand...

:prof

We are not a 'Democracy' we are a Democratic Republic or constitutional republic which are forms of democracy. The definition you are using is a "pure" or "direct" democracy.

So we are...

Republic :

a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

We are not...

Democracy:

a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences
 
from Turtle Dude

One of the main reasons why that happens is that too many politicians find advocating or engaging in massive spending actually gets them elected
Click to expand...

You have claimed this many times in many threads and despite being challenged to support this boast with actual evidence of it you NEVER provide any actual verifiable evidence of this happening in real life.

and how does that happen? they promise a majority of the voters in their district or state, or city more and more spending but they also tell the majority that the majority won't have to pay for this increased spending. rather the rich will
Click to expand...

Again, you keep saying stuff like this over and over and over again but you NEVER provide any verifiable evidence that this is actually happening in real life.

the majority continues to demand more spending because they don't get taxed more and more to pay for it.
Click to expand...


People are taxed - the vast vast majority of Americans pay lots of taxes. Your claim that the majority want more spending because they do not pay taxes is factually wrong and a falsehood.


Now the GOP is not blameless, They are afraid to cut off the addicts so they keep the public teat supplied with milk but they don't raise taxes on the rich to pay for it (whether raising taxes on the rich actually brings in more money for say more than a year or so is a dubious proposition).
Click to expand...

The GOP certainly are not blameless but the reason you give is simply a right wing cause celebre and talking point. The reality is that the GOP was firmly behind the 2001 and 2003 BUSH TAX CUTS which created the situation today where 47% of workers pay no federal income tax. They certainly pay lots of other taxes and pay much higher percentages of their income for some of those taxes than do the wealthy, but the fact that 47% pay no federal income tax can be traced back to a Republican President and the YES votes for both bills - 93% of which were supplied by Republican members of the House and Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
 
cpwill said:
well, that is probably because we don't have a democracy, John. We have a representative republic, and with good reason.

Partly for the precise reason under discussion; as Benjamin Franklin put it: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Any time you set up the circumstances where a majority of voters can decide to give themselves largess that they take from a minority voters, you are setting up a massive incentive for them to do so, a massive incentive for worthless politicians to find a way to justify it, and a massive incentive on the part of the Lamb to either get out of dodge or invest in some weaponry and challenge the vote.

as for the how the founders viewed the franchise - they left it up to the states. some had more restrictions, some less.
Click to expand...

Benjamin Franklin spoke those words long before a whole litany of democratic reforms were instituted for some 200 years after he was dead and buried. Those democratic reforms would include
*** expansion of voting rights among non property owners
*** expanding voting rights to African Americans and people of color
*** expanding voting rights to female citizens
*** expanding voting rights to citizens 18 to 20 years of age
*** abolishing the poll tax, literacy test and other obstacles to voting
*** introducing voter driven procedures such as recall, initiative and referendum to give citizens a direct voice
*** changing how US Senators are elected
*** creating legislative districts in which one man and one vote are the guiding principle

All of these democratic reforms - plus others - have significantly altered the structure of our political system from the pure Constitutional republic that Franklin knew. Today, we are very much a Constitutional democratic republic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom