I no longer live there, but if I recall correctly, the move failed.
yes, only property owners should vote
no, let everyone vote
I no longer live there, but if I recall correctly, the move failed.
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
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
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.1. Government policies of all types affect all citizens. Why then do we not allow referendums to alter court rulings?
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.
And again, who decides what is "destructive?" What you classify as "harmful," someone else may classify as "critically beneficial."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.
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.
Elected officials, who are accountable to the public.2.Who get's to decide who graduates high school? Carry a concealed weapon?
Bureaucrats at government agencies, who are accountable to elected officials, who are accountable to the public.Drive a car? Sell you beef? Donate a lung to your child?
"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.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.
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?
Do senior citizens not have a conflict of interest? Obviously, since they routinely protect their entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.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 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.
Or, you're just being inconsistent.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.
"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.
I'm not the one one advocating mass disenfranchisement -- so no, that is really not my job.For the rest, you'll have to provide your own notion of irresponsibility for consideration first....
Let me just get this clear. You want to stop the following groups from voting:Since you wish to allow incompetents to vote, I don't fathom your concept of "irresponsibility."
"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.
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.It worked quite well in Great Britain for many years, as well as in the younger United States.
What on Earth are you talking about?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.
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.
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.
One of you will end up here next!
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