yes, only property owners should vote
no, let everyone vote
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.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?
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?
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...
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.
Quod scripsi, scripsi