View Poll Results: Should owning property be a requirement to vote

Voters
100. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, only property owners should vote

    10 10.00%
  • no, let everyone vote

    90 90.00%
Page 36 of 66 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 654

Thread: Only property owners should vote

  1. #351
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    No one is suggesting that non-citizens should get a vote.
    Not technically germane to this thread, but in San Francisco about 10-ish years ago there was a serious push to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in local school board elections. As I understand it, it would have been perfectly legal.

    I no longer live there, but if I recall correctly, the move failed.


    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    A debate such as this will be overrun by emotionalism.
    As was the original premise in post #1.


    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    How about no representation without taxation?
    Did you just concede your entire argument with one sentence? Considering that everybody pays taxes of some kind or another, it seems that you have.


    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    The draft is what lowered the voting age and it should of went back up to 21 when the draft ended.
    You're trying to find some sort of logical consistency here, and it's not working. You would lower the age to 18 when a draft is in effect, which allows non-drafted people to vote... or you would raise it to 21 in a non-draft era, which would shut out 18-20 yr old volunteers.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  2. #352
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,350

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Children cannot vote.
    : And that's unfortunate, because those children will be the ones paying the tab for all the spending that is going on today, and they didn't even have a say in the matter! :

  3. #353
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,746

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    You say this...

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.
    But I hear this:

    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  4. #354
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,042

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    No, actually they don't. Minors and convicted felons are barred generally. I merely posit that the educationally deficient and those living as public burdens be included in the disenfranchised classes. This is merely a reasonable measure. Or would you suggest that people who don't understand wht they're doing should be allowed to engage in complex and dangerous tasks generally?
    There really isnt a way to measure the worthiness of a voter. Many of the people who voted in Bush and Obama met your simple requirements. And a lot of people who meet your requirements would vote in all kinds of bad legislation given a chance.

    Personally as a property owner I do not see any special reason why I should vote and why my 86 year old veteran neighbor who fought for this country in WW2 should not vote because he is a renter.

    All that a government would need to do to control the country would be to remove their property rights.

    “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote,”

    Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the Mass of Citizens should not be without a voice, in making the laws which they are to obey, & in chusing the Magistrates, who are to administer them, and if the only alternative be between an equal & universal right of suffrage for each branch of the Govt. and a confinement of the entire right to a part of the Citizens, it is better that those having the greater interest at stake namely that of property & persons both, should be deprived of half their share in the Govt.; than, that those having the lesser interest, that of personal rights only, should be deprived of the whole. James Madison, Note to His Speech on the Right of Suffrage

    1821

  5. #355
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,003

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    Remain calm.
    And carry on?


    1. Government policies of all types affect all citizens. Why then do we not allow referendums to alter court rulings?
    Because we already have checks and balances, which are premised on the idea that the government is supposed to both reflect the will of the citizens, as well as remain within the boundaries of recognized rights.

    And in fact, laws can alter some court rulings. E.g. if we decided today to decriminalize marijuana possession up to 1 ounce, we could also pass a law that ends the prison sentences of anyone previously arrested for the same charge. We also rather infamously saw the legislators and governor of Florida pass a law in an explicit attempt to overturn court rulings in the Terry Schiavo case. (If the law had not been found unconstitutional, it could have succeeded.)

    This is also a bit of a straw man. I'm not advocating direct democracy. I'm stating that a fundamental concept of American government is to serve the people -- not find excuses to exclude citizens from the political process.


    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.
    And again, who decides what is "destructive?" What you classify as "harmful," someone else may classify as "critically beneficial."

    Perhaps I was not clear enough with point #2. Namely, how do you avoid politicizing this process? We already have several people in this thread who all but explicitly classify "voting for Democrats" as being "destructive" and/or trying to disenfranchise citizens based on their assumption about policy choices.


    2.Who get's to decide who graduates high school? Carry a concealed weapon?
    Elected officials, who are accountable to the public.


    Drive a car? Sell you beef? Donate a lung to your child?
    Bureaucrats at government agencies, who are accountable to elected officials, who are accountable to the public.


    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.
    "Unproductive?" If you're unemployed, you pay federal income taxes on your unemployment insurance. You also pay sales taxes; if you own a home, real estate taxes; if you rent, part of your rent goes to your landlord's tax liabilities. In fact, one reason to pay out unemployment is because almost all of that goes right back into the economy, and has a high multiplier.

    If you sell stocks while you're unemployed, you owe capital gains taxes. Or: What if you are wealthy via inheritance, and all you do is collect income from a trust fund? Is that person "unproductive?" Should we disenfranchise any recipient of funds from an estate?

    In addition, decisions about taxes could be made today, that will profoundly affect the citizens for years to come -- well after they have resumed working.

    And what about Social Security? Is anyone who is on Social Security "unproductive," and therefore ought to be redlined from voting?


    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?
    Do senior citizens not have a conflict of interest? Obviously, since they routinely protect their entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.

    Do farmers not have a "profound conflict of interest?" It sure looks that way, since they keep pushing for subsidies. Do bankers not have profound conflicts of interest? Should the banks be barred from donating to PACs and hiring lobbyists on that basis? Do homeowners not have a profound conflict of interest, since government agencies can influence interest rates and the rules for home sales? Do wealthy people not have a profound conflict of interest, when it comes to taxation?

    Every discernible political entity and/or classification has its political interests. This is not a bad thing; this is how politics works. The system was explicitly designed to allow these different groups to compete against one another, which helps prevent any one single group from gaining too much influence. In fact, that's pretty much the point -- instead of resorting to violence, we use a peaceful political mechanism to resolve conflicts.


    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.
    Or, you're just being inconsistent.

    "Free speech" and "voting" are both methods of participating and influencing political outcomes; both are rights. If you plan to curtail one right, you might as well curtail the second. Unless you also plan to shut up disenfranchised citizens, who demand the vote after you take it away from them.


    For the rest, you'll have to provide your own notion of irresponsibility for consideration first....
    I'm not the one one advocating mass disenfranchisement -- so no, that is really not my job.


    Since you wish to allow incompetents to vote, I don't fathom your concept of "irresponsibility."
    Let me just get this clear. You want to stop the following groups from voting:

    • "Unproductive" people, even if they actively want to work
    • Anyone with a conflict of interest
    • People you classify as "incompetent"

    And you have a sure-proof way to ensure that no one will get tossed because of their political views -- even though you explicitly state that you want to prevent people from voting because of the policies you expect them to advocate?

    The very fact that you're hoping to avoid specific policy results is, in and of itself, the epitome of what is actually wrong with disenfranchising people in this manner.


    It worked quite well in Great Britain for many years, as well as in the younger United States.
    Yes, the US did very well when we allowed slavery, Jim Crow laws and Black Codes. The UK should definitely be proud of its debtor prisons, workhouse and monarchical rule. Definitely things to be proud of.


    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.
    What on Earth are you talking about?

    Again, the principle here is that the citizens have a right to determine how they are governed. This has nothing to do with whether or not someone is capable of passing a civics test.

  6. #356
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    : And that's unfortunate, because those children will be the ones paying the tab for all the spending that is going on today, and they didn't even have a say in the matter! :
    Well that's true polgara, but I still don't think that children should be voting. I could only imagine the things they'd vote for.

  7. #357
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,793

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    I really love how sawyer insinuated that giving black people and women the vote was "dumbing down" the voter base. But don't worry, he's totally ok with that sort of dumbing down.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #358
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,793

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Fair enough, children and people on welfare are likely to vote lib. Does that make you proud to be lib?
    Racists are likely to vote Con. Does that make you proud to be con?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #359
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:46 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,852

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    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.
    It uses the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE five different times in five different places. If there is no right to vote, why would it use that phrase over and over and over and over again over a span of many decades?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #360
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,250

    Re: Only property owners should vote

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    I'm not sure that voters should only be property owners, but I'd certainly entertain the idea that only tax payers should be allowed to vote in federal elections. (After passing a one-time literacy test.) I think that no more than 25% of adults should typically be engaged in voting in federal elections. No one ignorant of the issues should ever vote as a matter of conscience.
    I will go with literacy if you go for a basic test in science and scientific method.

    But we both know that both propositions are not going to happen.

Page 36 of 66 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •