• 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
I'm all for denying the poor their vote...
...provided they are under 18, or a non citizen, or a prisoner.



all other poor people can vote to their hearts content.
 
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.

It is completely illegal to do so. Even in places where one is allowed to BE, it is illegal to hunt fish or gather food without purchasing a permit to do so. And you have to buy a wilderness pass to BE in the wilderness.
 
Imagine the system that would have to be set up to implement such a restriction.

Folks would have to send in a W2 every year to confirm that they still have a job and pay taxes.

What if someone is unemployed in October, but gets a job on Nov 1st? Do they still get to vote in that years election?

Stupid law, stupid concept, waste of time.
 
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.
I need to borrow your avvy for a sec.
Lion-Doing-Facepalm-436x360.jpg

Funny how conservatives never apply common logic and basic facts.

FACT: Less than 99% of americans dropped out of school, have a dozen kids or have gone through a dozen spouses.
Hell, it's probably less than 0.5%
Now stop being so rubbish.
 
Last edited:
I think that's a bit of a stretch.

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.
A bit of a stretch? Do you deny that people generally elect those who best serve their perceived interests?

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.
What does this have to do with anything that I said? The only thing you've done is further explain your subjective opinion on what valid goals are to you. What on Earth makes you think that people should have to live your expectations? And what on Earth makes you think that everyone is capable of living up to those expectations?

This is essentially what you're saying: "I believe a good citizen does X, so anybody who doesn't do X isn't a good citizen and shouldn't vote". Where X is some incredibly subjective judgment. Do you not see a problem with that line of thinking?
 
A bit of a stretch? Do you deny that people generally elect those who best serve their perceived interests?


What does this have to do with anything that I said? The only thing you've done is further explain your subjective opinion on what valid goals are to you. What on Earth makes you think that people should have to live your expectations? And what on Earth makes you think that everyone is capable of living up to those expectations?

This is essentially what you're saying: "I believe a good citizen does X, so anybody who doesn't do X isn't a good citizen and shouldn't vote". Where X is some incredibly subjective judgment. Do you not see a problem with that line of thinking?
With a subjective opinion like his, probably not.

Edit: Also, the poll is stupid. Maybe I don't think economic class should change your voting rights. It's like saying, "Do you like dogs?" and the choices being "I like poodles" and "I like terriers."
 
Last edited:
The super wealthy already have far more power than the poor. They can afford powerful lobbiests to buy congressmen. They can afford to air ridiculous and distorted 30-second political ads. They can afford to set up absurd TV and radio talk shows that use misinformation and hyperbole to its maximum effect. The poor can do none of this, but at least they still have the right to vote. And the extreme right want to take that away too. Could it be more clear that they're fascists, not conservatives?
 
It is completely illegal to do so. Even in places where one is allowed to BE, it is illegal to hunt fish or gather food without purchasing a permit to do so. And you have to buy a wilderness pass to BE in the wilderness.
Good points. There are places that are remote enough that you could probably get away with it for awhile, but you're right, it'd still be technically illegal.
 
When we say the "poor" shouldn't be allowed to vote... or the "unworthy", or the "takers", or whatever as it is all semantics for essentially the same thing... how exactly are we defining "poor"?

  • Is it people who have no jobs at all and collect welfare/unemployment/live on the street/sponge off relatives?
  • Is there a dollar threshold? Maybe $10,000/yr... Make $9,999 and you're out, but make $10,000 and you're in?
  • Pre-tax, or post-tax income?
  • How about people who have jobs, and have income taxes withheld, but get it all back from deductions and credits? (Keep in mind that rich people get and use deductions and credits, too, so be consistent here.)
  • If a person has a job, and money is withheld for things like FICA, do they get a voice on FICA related issues, but not other stuff? How does that work when the issues are decided by elected representatives who at times are deciding things one helped contribute and other times are deciding things where one did not contribute?

I'd bet that most of the people who advocating establishing standards for voting are also advocates for small government, and it would take an incredible bureaucracy and expansion of the government to weed all this stuff out and enforce it. Is that really what you want?
 
Last edited:
Funny how conservatives never apply common logic and basic facts.

Funny how liberals pretend they have a clue what they're talking about when clearly they don't. If you'd have spent 5 seconds looking, you'd have found out that I was absolutely correct.

FACT: Less than 99% of americans dropped out of school, have a dozen kids or have gone through a dozen spouses.
Hell, it's probably less than 0.5%

Bzzt, but thanks for playing. While you are right that less than 99% of Americans have dropped out of school, that's an absurd concept right there, you will find that among the poor, especially in inner cities, the numbers are shockingly high. In Los Angeles, for example, 18.2% of all students drop out of high school. 3.5% of 8th graders never even make it to high school because they drop out.

Further, you're also entirely wrong about the out-of-wedlock birth rate among the poor. 80% of non-married teen mothers end up on welfare, 72% of non-married teen mothers have their births financed by Medicaid and 53% of the total cost of AFDC, Medicaid and food stamp costs can be attributed to non-married teen mother-headed families. It's estimated that out-of-wedlock births cost taxpayers $2.2 billion per year in welfare and food stamps. Multiple-father syndrome is extremely common among the poor, among black poor women with more than one child, nearly half of them have multiple fathers for their children. Those children not raised with their fathers, indeed those who are raised without any consistent male influence in the home, tended to do much more poorly in school, have a much higher incidence of jail time, etc.

Maybe you ought to try a little research before you blather your liberal nonsense all over the place.
 
80% of non-married teen mothers end up on welfare, 72% of non-married teen mothers have their births financed by Medicaid and 53% of the total cost of AFDC, Medicaid and food stamp costs can be attributed to non-married teen mother-headed families. It's estimated that out-of-wedlock births cost taxpayers $2.2 billion per year in welfare and food stamps.
Wow, that almost sounds like an argument for abortion.
 
Wow, that almost sounds like an argument for abortion.

Actually, it's a great argument for personal responsibility.
 
Do they adjust representation based upon percentage of those disenfranchised in this fashion as also required by the fourteenth?

No need to as they are still citizens of said state and counted even if they can't vote. Again argue with the SCOTUS, they called it not me. ;)

Honest question, as it seems you are more knowledgeable about this matter.

No problem answering honest questions.
 
Last edited:
And homo sapiens is a SOCIAL species.

Survival of the fittest INDIVIDUAL did NOT get us from the savannah to the moon.

coddling lazy sloths sure didn't either
 
Could you expand a bit on who exactly these "lazy sloths" are? Is it obvious to anyone who looks at one, or might there be some who look like a lazy sloth but not actually be one?

Why-are you upset with the fact that some in this nation are dependent on the work of others when they could work themselves or are you mad that I pointe it out

my point was not to discuss WHO is a lazy sloth but the fact is policies that coddle them did not allow us to achieve great things
 
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 says a person with no argument.

No one is splitting hairs, we are a republic as I have shown: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/111512-should-poor-not-allowed-vote-20.html#post1059916267

Please learn the difference and come back.
 
Why-are you upset with the fact that some in this nation are dependent on the work of others
Everybody in this nation is dependent on the work of others. The idea that those on welfare are the only ones is preposterous.
 
Why-are you upset with the fact that some in this nation are dependent on the work of others when they could work themselves or are you mad that I pointe it out

my point was not to discuss WHO is a lazy sloth but the fact is policies that coddle them did not allow us to achieve great things
In other words, you're just amusing yourself by spewing rhetoric. Got it. :roll:

It's hard to know what you're point is if you're comments are too broad. How can I or anyone else know exactly who it is you're talking about if you're not willing to be at least somewhat specific? Asking for clarification is not an unreasonable request.
 
A bit of a stretch? Do you deny that people generally elect those who best serve their perceived interests?

Plenty of lower income people own property.


What does this have to do with anything that I said? The only thing you've done is further explain your subjective opinion on what valid goals are to you. What on Earth makes you think that people should have to live your expectations? And what on Earth makes you think that everyone is capable of living up to those expectations?

This is essentially what you're saying: "I believe a good citizen does X, so anybody who doesn't do X isn't a good citizen and shouldn't vote". Where X is some incredibly subjective judgment. Do you not see a problem with that line of thinking?

It's not subjective. I'm not speaking about what is right and wrong in a moral sense, but rather how one is to succeed in this society. Savings, investment, property, etc. Sure, people can fritter their money away on consumer junk to fulfill their every whim, but they are not investing long term. People who are short sighted offer little to the political environment. In case you haven't noticed, those are the types of morons who are in control now. Hypothetically, people who think long term are more logical than those who do not. Just a thought.
 
Why-are you upset with the fact that some in this nation are dependent on the work of others when they could work themselves or are you mad that I pointe it out

my point was not to discuss WHO is a lazy sloth but the fact is policies that coddle them did not allow us to achieve great things

You miss the central point that when he asks you who this is he is asking to show that such people exist and how you identify them as such.
 
Back
Top Bottom