• 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
how is that extreme right? the founders didn't want those who had no skin in the game voting away the wealth of those who did

Yeah, but there was a functionally infinite Commons at that point where a man could go build himself a plave in the wilderness by the strength of his own hand.

Now every square inch is owned and somebody must pay for one to sleep legally in the US.

The game is FUNDAMENTALLY different than it was then.
 
I'm a liberal, and I don't plan on being poor forever. I'm receiving a Pell Grant, but I'm certainly not addicted to government "handouts". Your argument is flawed, and all you want to do is demonize the people you disagree with. For someone who goes on about how liberals piss and moan about the rich, you sure do your fair share pissing and moaning about the poor.

I don't wine about the poor but the poverty pimps who use them to gain power and the parasites who demand others pay for them. and unlike the poor who don't pay for my existence, I do pay for some of their existence. I think that gives me a bit more standing
 
Yeah, but there was a functionally infinite Commons at that point where a man could go build himself a plave in the wilderness by the strength of his own hand.

Now every square inch is owned and somebody must pay for one to sleep legally in the US.

The game is FUNDAMENTALLY different than it was then.

true and false.
 
Yeah, but there was a functionally infinite Commons at that point where a man could go build himself a plave in the wilderness by the strength of his own hand.

Now every square inch is owned and somebody must pay for one to sleep legally in the US.

The game is FUNDAMENTALLY different than it was then.
Theoretically, one could still go "live off the grid" in the wilderness, but it's extremely difficult as they would be harassed as vagrants whenever they crossed paths with local law enforcement. That doesn't negate your point, though, and I agree with it.
 
the truth, the environment and nature can all be harsh. but it is the truth

And homo sapiens is a SOCIAL species.

Survival of the fittest INDIVIDUAL did NOT get us from the savannah to the moon.
 
So maybe we should increase their income then.

Maybe they should get better jobs then. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed around and dropped out of school then. Maybe they should have tried being responsible then, not had a dozen kids by a dozen fathers, etc. Funny how liberals never think about the things these people have done to screw up their lives in the first place.
 
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.

ALL democracy is the exercise of control over others. I smoke pot, which has been rendered illegal by our democracy. Atempting to control me by decree of the electorate.
 
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.

Saying that those who are good at global expansionist capitalism should have more say than those less so is little different than saying those who run faster or can lift more weight should make all the decisions.

Capitalism is a made up game. And the rules of the game are made by those who are good at it or really enjoy it.

I would be willing to bet that the rate of transition from renting to owning has decreased as income disparity has increased.
 
are you in favor of felons voting? children?

Don't see a single legitimate reason to create a class that is taxed without representation.

Especially considering that a significant proportion of felonies today are victimless crimes.
 
Maybe they should get better jobs then. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed around and dropped out of school then. Maybe they should have tried being responsible then, not had a dozen kids by a dozen fathers, etc. Funny how liberals never think about the things these people have done to screw up their lives in the first place.
Oh, we think about it, we just don't make it the default explanation for having a low-income as people like you do.
 
Thats admirable...and I was quite the poor kid too...but I also know theres many that no matter how hard they try cant climb out of it....that land of opportunity crap is a great political soundbite...but they forget to tell you its not for everyone in the same way

But they can be if they're willing to work hard to achieve it. The problem is, you're defending lazy, stupid people. I refuse to do so.
 
I don't see how placing that restriction on voting would place further restrictions on property ownership.
It doesn't do it inherently. However, if gives a certain part of the population more political power that they can use to elect politicians who will pass laws to further restrict property ownership. For example, imagine I'm business guy X who owns some property and I know that if the poorer citizens build themselves up and own property, they will vote for politicians who will make policies that hurt my interests. So in order to prevent said people from fulling the property ownership requirements that enable them to vote, I use my own vote (which I have and they don't) to elect politicians that will place more restrictions on home loans below a certain income level.

That kind of situation is the situation that would undoubtedly arise if property ownership were a requirement for voting. The default for many or most lower class people would be no property ownership and no vote. The default for many of the people whose interests would be threatened by their vote would be property ownership and a vote. Consequently, many of them who are understandably concerned about their interests would use their own votes to make it more difficult for their lower classes to acquire property.

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.
Good for you, but this does nothing to counter my original point. The default right to vote is important if we're interested in equality and a quality nation. Moreover, the problem with this comment in particular is that you expect other people to live up to your subjective definition of "having a stake in the country" and "having goals to prosper". The idea that your measure is the gold standard of both is ridiculous.
 
It blows my mind that anyone would deny another citizen, rich or poor, the right to vote. Regardless of where you are financially, you deserve to be able to vote. I'm fine with denying the right to people who are in prison, but that's it.
 
It blows my mind that anyone would deny another citizen, rich or poor, the right to vote. Regardless of where you are financially, you deserve to be able to vote. I'm fine with denying the right to people who are in prison, but that's it.

It's not so much on the right to vote for representatives, but when it comes to being able to vote yourself more entitlements on the backs of others, that should be severely restricted.
 
It's not so much on the right to vote for representatives, but when it comes to being able to vote yourself more entitlements on the backs of others, that should be severely restricted.
You mean like bailouts?
 
It's not so much on the right to vote for representatives, but when it comes to being able to vote yourself more entitlements on the backs of others, that should be severely restricted.

so, if you make less than $30,000 a year, your vote should only count as 3/5ths of a man...I mean a vote?
 
Lol I like how people split hairs in calling our Republic with representational democracy to better fit their purpose of what we essentially were during British rule with dukes and such. I don't think I need to waste anymore thought on this topic. You clowns that think the poor need not vote simply read the pledge of allegiance think about what it stands for and then come back at me with that "only the rich should vote" bull****.
 
so, if you make less than $30,000 a year, your vote should only count as 3/5ths of a man...I mean a vote?

The only people who should be able to vote for a thing are the people whose money will actually be funding it.
 
It's not so much on the right to vote for representatives, but when it comes to being able to vote yourself more entitlements on the backs of others, that should be severely restricted.

can you point to one of these votes where people were allowed to vote themselves more entitlements?
 
You should probably read section 2 of the 14th amendment.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged the provisions of Section 2 in recent times. For example, in Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) the Court cited Section 2 as justification for the states disenfranchising felons.

Do they adjust representation based upon percentage of those disenfranchised in this fashion as also required by the fourteenth?

Honest question, as it seems you are more knowledgeable about this matter.
 
Absolutely that is the strategy. They are laying the foundation and groundwork to get such ideas into the public discourse and then eventually attempt to enact such repressive measures into law.

I believe all this is strongly connected into the demographic projections for a white minority in forty or fifty years and what it could mean to the white persons party - the GOP.

Bookmark this page for future reference!

I actually think it is being aimed for to eneble enforcement of the second world standard of living the business community is willing to " break off" to the citizenry at large.

I don't know that it has racial overtones at all, seeing as how the hispanic community is largely socially conservative.

I think the haves want to "disarm" the have-nots.

Because our rich can't compete with the rich in countries with huge populations of the abject poor if they continue to allow the masses here to have as large a percentage of gdp as they have grown accustomed to.
 
Last edited:
Maybe they should get better jobs then. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed around and dropped out of school then. Maybe they should have tried being responsible then, not had a dozen kids by a dozen fathers, etc. Funny how liberals never think about the things these people have done to screw up their lives in the first place.

That's a ridiculous stereotype.

Saying that those who are good at global expansionist capitalism should have more say than those less so is little different than saying those who run faster or can lift more weight should make all the decisions.

Capitalism is a made up game. And the rules of the game are made by those who are good at it or really enjoy it.

I would be willing to bet that the rate of transition from renting to owning has decreased as income disparity has increased.

Owning property isn't difficult. My husband and I both have been laid off within the last several years, and we still managed to own property. We are by no means capitalists who are good at the game. In fact, for the most part, we suck at it. I can't say with any real truth that I am particularly enthusiastic about capitalism, but I hate Big Government even more.

It doesn't do it inherently. However, if gives a certain part of the population more political power that they can use to elect politicians who will pass laws to further restrict property ownership. For example, imagine I'm business guy X who owns some property and I know that if the poorer citizens build themselves up and own property, they will vote for politicians who will make policies that hurt my interests. So in order to prevent said people from fulling the property ownership requirements that enable them to vote, I use my own vote (which I have and they don't) to elect politicians that will place more restrictions on home loans below a certain income level.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

That kind of situation is the situation that would undoubtedly arise if property ownership were a requirement for voting. The default for many or most lower class people would be no property ownership and no vote. The default for many of the people whose interests would be threatened by their vote would be property ownership and a vote. Consequently, many of them who are understandably concerned about their interests would use their own votes to make it more difficult for their lower classes to acquire property.

I don't know about undoubtedly, but I suppose it's possible. Either way, I don't know that it would make much of a difference at this point. The super wealthy already have more influence over the average person concerning policy.


Good for you, but this does nothing to counter my original point. The default right to vote is important if we're interested in equality and a quality nation. Moreover, the problem with this comment in particular is that you expect other people to live up to your subjective definition of "having a stake in the country" and "having goals to prosper". The idea that your measure is the gold standard of both is ridiculous.

Having goals to prosper should include getting out of debt and owning property, as well as increasing one's income. Wealth is more than just income. Owning assets such as real estate is also important. Throwing money down the drain on consumer items is not only short sighted, but ignorant. Long term investment is more important.
 
Back
Top Bottom