• 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.
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.


A debate such as this will be overrun by emotionalism.
As was the original premise in post #1.


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.


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.
 
Children cannot vote.

:agree: 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! :thumbdown:
 
You say this...

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:

 
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
 
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.
 
:agree: 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! :thumbdown:

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. :rofl
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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. :rofl

True that! :eek: :lamo:
 
Big screen TVs and video games for all! :lol:

School two hours per day, maximum, with no homework! :lol:

Would you be willing to start a new thread on this? I'll bet the posts would be hilarious, and we all need to laugh more! :thumbs:
 
Those who do not believe that the right to vote should extend to all adult citizens should be the first to give up suffrage.

OP, I'm looking at you.
 
If I pay for it - like I do social security - it matters not if it is voluntary or not.

This goes around and around because Social Security straddles the lines between several inherently different things. Welfare program, retirement program, old age insurance, trust fund, Ponzi scheme... it has features of all of those things, but it is not truly any of those things.

And in a sense it is voluntary because I have the power and right to withdraw from the American system at any time of my chosing but I stay just the same knowing the rules of the game and I keep playing of my own free will.

By that weak string of thought, there is no such thing as a mandate in this country because anyone can always GTFO. "Love it or leave it" is weak sauce.

I ask again - if I am NOT on public assistance and work for a living, am I in this group of a NET TAXPAYER?

It appears so? I wasn't the one who framed the discussion that way. I framed it in terms of dependence vs. independence in meeting one's needs. The reliance one has on the external to meet one's own basic daily needs like food, housing, and health care should result in proportional discounted in voting power.

That way, you can be without so much as two nickels to rub together and still have a full vote, as long as you're self-reliant for your personal basic needs.

Those who do not believe that the right to vote should extend to all adult citizens should be the first to give up suffrage.

OP, I'm looking at you.

Why don't we allow minors to vote?
 
Heads will explode...

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation , to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. "
John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.

"The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live. "
John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. I, p. 161.


"Every male citizen of the commonwealth, liable to taxes or to militia duty in any county, shall have a right to vote for representatives for that county to the legislature. "
Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1900), p. 842.


"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. "
Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, ¦49.


"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. "
Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. IV, p. 256.

"Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption."
James Garfield, "A Century of Congress" published in Atlantic, July 1877.
 
By that weak string of thought, there is no such thing as a mandate in this country because anyone can always GTFO. "Love it or leave it" is weak sauce.

I do not advocate LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. You wanna love the country - fine. You don't want to love the nation - thats your right. But do not preach to me how you are forced to do things against your will when you have the choice to not do so. Do not preach to me about being forced to participate in a corrupt system when you have the ability to deny the system your participation on any day you decide to make that choice.
 
I do not advocate LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. You wanna love the country - fine. You don't want to love the nation - thats your right. But do not preach to me how you are forced to do things against your will when you have the choice to not do so. Do not preach to me about being forced to participate in a corrupt system when you have the ability to deny the system your participation on any day you decide to make that choice.

Ok, I will continue to not preach to you. But you asked by what formula and/or under what circumstances a person's vote might be discounted, and so I shared my opinion.
 
Ok, I will continue to not preach to you. But you asked by what formula and/or under what circumstances a person's vote might be discounted, and so I shared my opinion.

okay. thank you.
 
More like a 200 lb difference but are you sure she is 'poor' as in below the poverty level?

Poor people in America are MORE likely to be obese.

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.

err... no. Here in the U.S. we have a wide gap, sure; but that is not because our poor are so poor, it is because our wealthy are so wealthy. The size of the gap itself is irrelevant.

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)

I'll talk about healthcare in Europe, sure. We can talk about the fact that the creation of a single-payer healthcare system causes that single entitlement to dominate and explode government spending until dramatic cuts are forced due to fiscal crises. We can talk about how the American system (thus far, as deeply flawed as it is) produces better survival rates for people with serious illness such as cancer, probably due to the fact that Americans have more consistent access to better treatment for chronic diseases. For a single example, of Americans with Schizophrenia, 60% receive the latest generation of medication - compared to 10% of Germans and 20% of Spaniards. And Europeans still end up paying significant out-of-pocket costs, because the movement on that continent is towards introducing market reforms, not towards increasing government expenditure.

Go ahead and bring up the WHO report, which gives us low grades for "fairness" and "equitability" :roll: I'll just point out that the same report lists America #1 at "responsiveness to patients’ needs".

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.

:roll: the trust fund rich. 85% of America's millionaires didn't inherit their money - they are first generation rich, mostly successful small business owners. And democrats do make it explicit that they view their support for wealth-transfer programs as an electoral advantage.

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

Yeah... when I look at "who has class" in this society, I see that 85% of America's millionaires are self-made, mostly small business owners, and that the vast majority of our poor have become not just dependent, but developed a sense of entitlement towards that dependency. You can get classless wealthy people, sure; money just makes us better able to express what we already are. But when people point out that the left in this country benefits electorally from having the government encourage destructive behavior, they are absolutely correct.
 
School two hours per day, maximum, with no homework! :lol:

Would you be willing to start a new thread on this? I'll bet the posts would be hilarious, and we all need to laugh more! :thumbs:

Sounds like a good idea, but I'm just on a work break right now. :)
 
Unrelated to the thread topic. Unless you think property tax should be done at a federal level.

Actually that is precisely the topic. If you don't pay fed taxes maybe you shouldn't vote in fed elections. That is in keeping with the founders original intent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom