• 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!

Only property owners should vote

Should owning property be a requirement to vote

  • yes, only property owners should vote

    Votes: 6 7.3%
  • no, let everyone vote

    Votes: 76 92.7%

  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
. . ..

You can't test everyone for their competence. It would be expensive, fraud-ridden and not accurate.
Millions of school children would hold you to be a saint.

So, how do we manage to test people for competence in order to drive a car?

That seems to be a lot more difficult to me than testing people once in their lives for basic literacy and awareness of how the government functions.

Again I say unto thee, you are making platitudinous statements of a vague political philosophy, not the reason which should underpin it.

I'll try again. What is the advantage to Society in allowing people to control the government who do not understand how it operates? What advantage could it provide, rationally and with a high positive expectation, to them?
 
Millions of school children would hold you to be a saint.

So, how do we manage to test people for competence in order to drive a car?

That seems to be a lot more difficult to me than testing people once in their lives for basic literacy and awareness of how the government functions.

Again I say unto thee, you are making platitudinous statements of a vague political philosophy, not the reason which should underpin it.

I'll try again. What is the advantage to Society in allowing people to control the government who do not understand how it operates? What advantage could it provide, rationally and with a high positive expectation, to them?

See, you are confused. Driving is NOT a right. See how that works? EVERYONE has rights here in America. That's one of the things that makes our country so special and great. I refuse to let a few selfish asses ruin it.
 
It's not a right in the Constitution, like voting.
You're blurring the lines here. Marriage isn't a right either. Abortion isn't a right either as neither were addressed in the constitution. If you're going to judge rights only by the Bill of Rights then the issue is much bigger and broader, since America for the past 100 years at least has not been following the rights as presented in the Constitution but have created rights through laws which over ride the Constitution.

The only way the government is getting away with this is because they are calling it a "tax." If you don't have health insurance, you don't get thrown in jail, you get a tax penalty.
That may be true - and the SCOTUS agreed with that assessment. The problem here is "rights" are a very broad set of terms. Technically you're correct but in reality people believe their rights are much broader and encompass many other things because they were either taught that or they believe laws empower them with rights that they may or may not have.
 
A debate such as this will be overrun by emotionalism.
 
See, you are confused. Driving is NOT a right. See how that works? EVERYONE has rights here in America. That's one of the things that makes our country so special and great. I refuse to let a few selfish asses ruin it.

Why is driving not a right, and voting is? Perhaps we have a vital interest in changing the laws to prevent incompetents from voting. I certainly think, (note the verb) that we do.

By the way, your example of drivers' licenses illustrates the fallacy of your earlier assertion that everyone is treated equally before the law.

But even leaving aside drivers' licenses, you seem to imagine that general civics and literacy testing would be some sort of immense challenge. And yet, the State and Federal Government mandate repeated standardized testing of all school children. Could you explain please why this is not considered prohibitively difficult whilst general civics and literacy testing would be?

And I still await in rapt anticipation for you to delineate the rationale for allowing incompetents to vote. Perhaps I need to elucidate? Simply saying something like "everyone has the right," is a platitude at best, and a slogan more likely. What I'm inviting you to attempt is to explain the benefits, the logical argument, the profit to be had for us all in allowing incompetent operators to exercise control over our government. Please do provide a response of this nature that I might consider its merits.
 
Why is driving not a right, and voting is? Perhaps we have a vital interest in changing the laws to prevent incompetents from voting. I certainly think, (note the verb) that we do.

By the way, your example of drivers' licenses illustrates the fallacy of your earlier assertion that everyone is treated equally before the law.

But even leaving aside drivers' licenses, you seem to imagine that general civics and literacy testing would be some sort of immense challenge. And yet, the State and Federal Government mandate repeated standardized testing of all school children. Could you explain please why this is not considered prohibitively difficult whilst general civics and literacy testing would be?

And I still await in rapt anticipation for you to delineate the rationale for allowing incompetents to vote. Perhaps I need to elucidate? Simply saying something like "everyone has the right," is a platitude at best, and a slogan more likely. What I'm inviting you to attempt is to explain the benefits, the logical argument, the profit to be had for us all in allowing incompetent operators to handle the reigns do government. Please do provide a response of this nature that I might consider its merits.

Again, you demonstrate a poor understanding of the differences between rights and privileges. It is most certainly NOT just a slogan. This is why I also fight for gun rights here on the forum. Start taking away rights from people, and you are giving your freedom away to the government. Stupidity at its finest.
 
It is moreover quite the popular and vapid myth that any law, custom, policy, decree, ruling or command of man can ever make one person equal to another, with the possible exception that they can make people equal in death.
Ah yes, the absurd meme that "equal rights" is the same thing as "material equivalence."

We're not advocating Communism. We're talking about universal suffrage.


But can you give a good set of reasons -- not statements of philosophy, but reasons, why a republic should allow people who are incapable of voting responsibly to do so?
1) Government policies will affect every citizen. As such, citizens who have reached the age of majority, and who have not committed a heinous crime, should all have a say in how they are governed.

This is not just a privilege. It's a right. And taking it away will clearly turn those people into second-class citizens.


2) Who gets to decide who is and is not "responsible?" You?

Why does collecting unemployment and food stamps qualify as "irresponsible," if you're doing it to put food on the table for your family? Or do you genuinely believe that -- especially during a period of, say, 8% unemployment -- that you can walk out your door and find a job in 10 minutes?

Do you lose the right to vote if you declare bankruptcy? If you default on your mortgage? If you have too much credit card debt? If you fail to pay child support? If you get a divorce? If you have too many outstanding parking tickets? If you get busted for possessing a small amount of marijuana?

Should we give every citizen an IQ test, and state that if you do not make the grade, you don't get to vote?

Is voting for a Democrat a sign of "irresponsibility?" It's quite obvious that for some people posting in this thread, the answer to that one is "yes."


3) Why stop at voting? Why should "irresponsible" people be allowed to speak freely, and thus advocate for policy changes? Why should an "irresponsible" person be allowed to refuse to answer a police officer's questions? Surely you do not want irresponsible people to own a gun.


4) Last I checked, disenfranchising large groups of citizens doesn't work out well. Do we really need to review the abuses that were possible because of the Black Codes?
 
Ah yes, the absurd meme that "equal rights" is the same thing as "material equivalence."

We're not advocating Communism. We're talking about universal suffrage.



1) Government policies will affect every citizen. As such, citizens who have reached the age of majority, and who have not committed a heinous crime, should all have a say in how they are governed.

This is not just a privilege. It's a right. And taking it away will clearly turn those people into second-class citizens.


2) Who gets to decide who is and is not "responsible?" You?

Why does collecting unemployment and food stamps qualify as "irresponsible," if you're doing it to put food on the table for your family? Or do you genuinely believe that -- especially during a period of, say, 8% unemployment -- that you can walk out your door and find a job in 10 minutes?

Do you lose the right to vote if you declare bankruptcy? If you default on your mortgage? If you have too much credit card debt? If you fail to pay child support? If you get a divorce? If you have too many outstanding parking tickets? If you get busted for possessing a small amount of marijuana?

Should we give every citizen an IQ test, and state that if you do not make the grade, you don't get to vote?

Is voting for a Democrat a sign of "irresponsibility?" It's quite obvious that for some people posting in this thread, the answer to that one is "yes."


3) Why stop at voting? Why should "irresponsible" people be allowed to speak freely, and thus advocate for policy changes? Why should an "irresponsible" person be allowed to refuse to answer a police officer's questions? Surely you do not want irresponsible people to own a gun.


4) Last I checked, disenfranchising large groups of citizens doesn't work out well. Do we really need to review the abuses that were possible because of the Black Codes?

Another great post. I wish I could my thoughts into words so eloquently. I agree 100%.
 
Your average everyday Americans are fabulously wealthy. We have easier, wealthier, lives than the vast majority of Humanity. If you are born in the United States, probably, you are the 1%.

This is what a poor person looks like for most of humanity:

poverty-in-india.jpg


This is what a "poor" person looks like in America:

images


You'll notice about a 100lb difference.

More like a 200 lb difference but are you sure she is 'poor' as in below the poverty level? (trust ya like a brotha but I must obey the Patron Saint of CON bumper sticker philosophy and verify ;) )

For me it is a matter of scale, in a 3rd world nation there are those living in both extreme wealth and poverty. Same here except we at least make an attempt to have a social safety net howsomever the gulf between our richest and poorest is just as big a gulf as in any 3rd world nation.

I do enjoy seeing CONs use the rest of the world when it suits their mindset and reject it with a great deal of vigor when it is CONtrary to the CON message. (healthcare in Europe vs here comes to mind the quickest)

But again the rich trust fund whine wasn't American poor are so much better off BUT they feel 'raped' and being bled dry to buy liberal votes when ALL stats show the rich are getting richer.

I am NOT for a classless society but for the rich to have a bit more class, I guess it just goes to show money can't buy class... :peace
 
Ah yes, the absurd meme that "equal rights" is the same thing as "material equivalence."

We're not advocating Communism. We're talking about universal suffrage.



1) Government policies will affect every citizen. As such, citizens who have reached the age of majority, and who have not committed a heinous crime, should all have a say in how they are governed.

This is not just a privilege. It's a right. And taking it away will clearly turn those people into second-class citizens.


2) Who gets to decide who is and is not "responsible?" You?

Why does collecting unemployment and food stamps qualify as "irresponsible," if you're doing it to put food on the table for your family? Or do you genuinely believe that -- especially during a period of, say, 8% unemployment -- that you can walk out your door and find a job in 10 minutes?

Do you lose the right to vote if you declare bankruptcy? If you default on your mortgage? If you have too much credit card debt? If you fail to pay child support? If you get a divorce? If you have too many outstanding parking tickets? If you get busted for possessing a small amount of marijuana?

Should we give every citizen an IQ test, and state that if you do not make the grade, you don't get to vote?

Is voting for a Democrat a sign of "irresponsibility?" It's quite obvious that for some people posting in this thread, the answer to that one is "yes."


3) Why stop at voting? Why should "irresponsible" people be allowed to speak freely, and thus advocate for policy changes? Why should an "irresponsible" person be allowed to refuse to answer a police officer's questions? Surely you do not want irresponsible people to own a gun.


4) Last I checked, disenfranchising large groups of citizens doesn't work out well. Do we really need to review the abuses that were possible because of the Black Codes?
Remain calm.


1. Government policies of all types affect all citizens. Why then do we not allow referendums to alter court rulings? Because we limit that aspect of government to qualified individuals, do we not? I propose that this quite rational practice extend to voting, which is potentially more destructive when exercised by people who cannot describe the functions of Congress.

2.Who get's to decide who graduates high school? Drive a car? Carry a concealed weapon? Sell you beef? Donate a lung to your child? There are many ways that such a standard can be set and implemented. We can discuss that when more reasonable people are made aware of this urgent need.

Collecting unemployment and food stamps does not qualify one as "irresponsible," it qualifies one as "unproductive," for reasons of which thy might be wholly innocent. Nonetheless, they should not be allowed to vote in any federal election which involves taxation, including for a Congressional Representative. They have an inescapable and profound conflict of interest. Surely you do not posit that healthy people will be on such programs for a protracted period, make a lifestyle of it, do you?

IQ tests need not be administers. How about the sort of test we require for citizenship?


3. Because stupidity and ignorance when put on public display in and of themselves do not curtail the rights of others. Voting in ignorance, obliviously does. For the rest, you'll have to provide your own notion of irresponsibility for consideration first. Since you wish to allow incompetents to vote, I don't fathom your concept of "irresponsibility."

4. It worked quite well in Great Britain for many years, as well as in the younger United States. You also proceed from a common, and dare I say repulsively condescending Leftist misconception. You apparently assume that a normal person who is incapable of passing a general literacy and civics test today, will never be able to do so, instead of assuming that with some small effort they could readily gain the skills and knowledge required. These PEOPLE are almost exclusively mentally healthy, functional adults who will be almost entirely and universally capable of passing electoral muster. You might ask yourself what sort of contempt makes certain people assume that they will not.
 
Perhaps you can then explain why the Constitution uses the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation of that same idea then five different times in five different places if it is not a RIGHT?

It does not say the ability to vote but the RIGHT TO VOTE.

It does not say the power to vote but the RIGHT TO VOTE.

It does not say the act of casting a vote but RIGHT TO VOTE.

It does not say the privilege of casting a vote but the RIGHT TO VOTE.

It never says everyone has the right to vote. It spells out how those who do have the right to vote are to be treated fairly.
 
Again, you demonstrate a poor understanding of the differences between rights and privileges. It is most certainly NOT just a slogan. This is why I also fight for gun rights here on the forum. Start taking away rights from people, and you are giving your freedom away to the government. Stupidity at its finest.

I see. You can provide no rationale. I'm not surprised. So far as I can there are none.
 
I see. You can provide no rationale. I'm not surprised. So far as I can there are none.

The Constitution is my rationale. I don't need anything else. :)
 
How about no representation without taxation?

Who is exempt from paying taxes? EVERYONE pays taxes. Are you saying if someone agrees to surrender their voting privilege they don't have to pay fuel, sales, property, income, investment, inheritance taxes???

Nice CONvolution of a Founding Father quote. :roll:
 
So basically, unless you're relatively wealthy, you don't think someone has anything to offer society.

I'm a gainfully employed renter. And in fact, no matter how much money I had, I don't think I'd ever want to buy a house. I'm a city girl, and I like it that way. That means I will probably never own property. How does this mean I'm not intellectually capable of voting?

But even if it were purely an issue of money, how does that make someone unqualified to vote? The wealthy are the ones who set the tone of society for the poor. So why, precisely, should the poor be excluded from the discussion?

The fact that you associate allowing the poor to vote with "dumbing" things down speaks volumes about you.

And why do you believe simply owning a piece of the dirt will make someone interested in America's "success?" If anything, doesn't it make them more interested in themselves, at the expense of others if need be?

That is the logical counterpoint to your illogical statement of human nature, but it's not true, of course. The truth is that money doesn't make people what they are. Plenty of poor people, or simply people who don't own a piece of dirt, are interested in America's well-being. Plenty of people who are wealthy and own dirt aren't interested in the well-being of anyone but themselves.

If you want to raise the voting age, fine. But you should also raise the age at which you expect people to go die for their country along with it.

The draft is what lowered the voting age and it should of went back up to 21 when the draft ended.
 
An 18 year old in college that never had a job and still depends on mom and dad to eat is a child.

18 is the generally accepted age as adulthood. Just be thankful it isn't given at 16, as is the privilege of driving and even sexual activity in some states.
 
Lot of great points here.

Good morning, ChrisL. :2wave:

:agree: Do you think we'll get any logical answers to those great questions?...From anybody? :waiting:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom