yes, only property owners should vote
no, let everyone vote
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1062358832 (Only property owners should vote)
You've come up with a separate argument to which I have responded, namely that "for the crime of collecting a benefit, citizens should be disenfranchised, no trial necessary." Given the variety of reasons why someone might collect benefits, this is unacceptable.
For example: What about veterans? If a vet has PTSD and has to collect food stamps, should he or she also have a "time out" from voting, so they can think about the bad things they're doing by receiving taxpayer dollars?
Gussy it up how you like. It's just another example of someone trying to prevent poor people from having any say in how they are governed.
In Washington's time, land owners were the most likely to be educated, literate men of business. They had to be, because we didn't have the broad institution of finance and loans that allow anyone with (hell these days, even without) credit to buy property. Limiting voting rights to land owners won't guarantee anything. A test that requires people to demonstrate that they understand the functions and workings of our government, and the Constitution would be a far superior filter that ensures quality voting, instead of votes from idiots who constantly fall for the same broken promises.
I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.
I'd be fine with a property requirement, so long as:
1. All disenfranchised people are exempt from any and all taxes.
2. No disenfranchised person may be conscripted for military service. Any disenfranchised people who join the military are automatically rewarded with property upon their return from service.
3. Jail time for a disenfranchised person is less than half that of someone eligible for voting. If they don't get to determine what the law is, they should not be as affected by it.
As you can see, we'd have to radically change our legal system just to make property disenfranchisement remotely fair. I'm actually one of those who believe that adequate housing is a human right, so we'd basically be taking away someone's right because they don't have access to another right.
The real problem is not who votes but rather the tax system. we would solve a lot of problems if we didn't have a tax system that encourages those who have no skin in the tax game or are net tax consumers, to vote for big spenders because they don't receive the proper feedback (in terms of increased taxes) for the increased spending.
a consumption or sales tax or even a flat tax where a hike on the rates affects all voters would be a solution to this problem-a solution that is constitutional unlike the proposed one.
In the alternative, everyone should vote but those who are forced to pay more under our corrupt vote buying system, should have more votes