Only property owners should vote

Aunt Spiker said:

You know what makes this whole property thing even funnier: I would take all my acres, divide them up into tiny chunks, and sell that off as 'Voting Plots' - I could even erect a plaque. "This voting plot is in honor of ___" It would be like a cemetery for our rightfully granted rights.

It would become a tourist attraction.

. . . And I'd donate the money to charity and write it off on my taxes . . . and further a cause to overthrow such a ridiculous law.

Click to expand...

Always someone who wants to scam the system.:lol:

ChrisL said:

Point is there are many uninformed wealthy voters too. Just because a person is poor doesn't make them stupid.

Click to expand...

true enough. but poor people tend to be more easily seduced with promises of ice cream and candy that some politicians put out

VOTE FOR ME and I WILL GIVE YOU SOMETHING FREE

roguenuke said:

This idea would disenfranchise the vast majority of our military. They absolutely do not own their own land for a reason. They can get shipped overseas or to another state within a couple of years and generally every 4-5 years, depending on their branch of service.

This is a horrid idea. And it absolutely fails on a lot of assumptions it makes.

Property owners are not more responsible than non-property owners (which really should say "land-owners" since most people own some property, which is anything). Many people inherit at least some of their land. And renting can show a lot of responsibility to not do something they cannot afford, such as purchasing a home prior to being in a position to actually be able to afford it. You would disenfranchise many young people, particularly in their 20s (which I would bet is one of the goals of such a ridiculous suggestion).

If anything should be a requirement for voting or full citizenship it should be a certain amount of time of civil service/duty, such as teaching, military service, federal service, police work, being a firefighter, or some other public good job.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with coming in so late on a thread. You can't be expected to read 400 post but that has been addressed over and over. Military service gets you the right to vote.

Neomalthusian said:

It accomplishes this low number by purposely excluding a lot of social assistance programs that meet the general definition of welfare. When I refer to (social) welfare I don't exclude more than half of them by calling them something else, I include all of them.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Do you have an links or documentation to back up your allegations?

My proposal applies to them as well. It is about dependence on statutory aid administered by the government we vote for. It doesn't matter how much money a person has or does not have -- their vote should be weighted according to how independently they meet their own needs.

Click to expand...

Again, that does not constitute a low information voter. This is all only your opinion and nothing more.

roguenuke said:

Actually it is because it is impossible to truly measure how responsible a person is truly being. Responsibility is a concept, not a measurable thing. And everyone is irresponsible at one time or another within their adult life. And what is responsible or not is in fact arbitrary. Some would say that earning money is responsible, while others would say that being a good citizen and helping others is being responsible. Irresponsibility is easier to determine than responsibility, but even irresponsibility is not able to be truly measured. Is someone being irresponsible because they hit a lot of bad luck that they did everything within their power to try to predict but still came up short?

Click to expand...

How responsible is a convicted felon? We don't let them vote. How responsible is a crack whore with a bunch of illegitimate kids? Should we let her vote? REALLY???

TurtleDude said:

true enough. but poor people tend to be more easily seduced with promises of ice cream and candy that some politicians put out

VOTE FOR ME and I WILL GIVE YOU SOMETHING FREE

Click to expand...

Perhaps, and on the other end of the spectrum you have your greedy people who don't care about the country or it's people and vote strictly to benefit themselves.

Visbek said:

Oh, you mean because of the Earned Income Tax Credit? The tax break originally formulated by arch-libertarian Milton Friedman? Passed into law by Ronald Reagan? Passed and revised for decades with bipartisan support?

When those laws were written and passed, did anyone say "by the way, anyone who collects EITC should be disenfranchised?" Reagan certainly didn't:

"Several months ago in a speech, I said that voting was the most sacred right of free men and women. I pledged that as long as I am in a position to uphold the Constitution, no barrier would ever come between a secret ballot and the citizen's right to cast one. Today I am reaffirming that commitment.

For this Nation to remain true to its principles, we cannot allow any American's vote to be denied, diluted, or defiled. The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties, and we will not see its luster diminished....

Every American must know he or she can count on an equal chance and an equal vote. The decision we are announcing today benefits all of our citizens by making our democracy stronger and more available to everyone." (Ronald Reagan: Statement About Extension of the Voting Rights Act)​

Seriously? You want to disenfranchise half the country, because elected officials of both parties gave them a tax break?!?



Yeah, that whole "disenfranchise people to help them" policy worked out really great for blacks after the Civil War.

Click to expand...

So in your opinion Reagan was always right? Is he your God?

year2late said:

View attachment 67154254


I think that may top a list, but in the Ivy League schools they will want to snag aderall as well.:lamo

Click to expand...

No coincidence that Obama pushes a free education, classic vote buying and kids will bite.

ChrisL said:

Perhaps, and on the other end of the spectrum you have your greedy people who don't care about the country or it's people and vote strictly to benefit themselves.

Click to expand...

yep too sides of everything and thats why its a mentally retarded to limit votes based on something as dumb as owning property or other likeness issues

Henrin said:

Milton Friedman made clear after it passed his idea was not followed, but instead twisted into something completely different.

Click to expand...

Yes, he proposed much larger subsidies for those who qualified for his Negative Income Tax proposal. Congress cut back a little on his proposed subsidies, and added the requirement that anyone who qualifies for the EITC must be employed. (The EITC vs. the NIT | National Review Online)

He even said he learned a powerful lesson from the experience and if I remember correctly quit shortly after as a result of what happened.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid your recollection is incorrect. He was on the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board for the entirety of Reagan's term.


But this is all a bit aside the point. What astounds me is that conservatives and Republicans are turning their backs on their own policies and their own values, in order to game the political system. They've spent considerable time and effort trying to cut taxes, especially income taxes and any sort of federal taxes. Some on the fringes go so far as to incorrectly claim those taxes are unconstitutional. Conservatives have also pushed us into war after war, in order to spread democracy -- not republicanism, not constitutionalism, but the democratic principle of giving citizens a say in how they are governed. It was a big part of the the rationale for opposing Communism; it's why soldiers and civilians died in wars all across the globe, including Vietnam and Iraq.

And now, taxes are proposed as as a price one has to pay in order to qualify for the vote? Democracy needs to be restricted to those who pass a civics test every 2 years and don't collect unemployment? And the way to help people is to take away their right to vote?

Even given the well-reported anti-democratic tendencies of some of the framers, this is so wildly inconsistent that it barely makes any sense. It really looks like conservatives are just giving up on the electoral process.

AGENT J said:

yep too sides of everything and thats why its a mentally retarded to limit votes based on something as dumb as owning property or other likeness issues

Click to expand...

It's funny to me how we get some of the "gunnies" on here who are constantly talking about how precious the second amendment is to all citizens, to then come here and want to strip some citizens of their right to vote based upon their socioeconomic class. It's stunning actually. You would think they of all people would understand how important it is that all of our citizens have their rights unrestricted by the government.

sawyerloggingon said:

How responsible is a convicted felon? We don't let them vote. How responsible is a crack whore with a bunch of illegitimate kids? Should we let her vote? REALLY???

Click to expand...

I take the lives of my passengers into my hands every time I take off. I am entrusted with aircraft worth more money than you will ever have in your entire life, and that's not even counting the net worth of the people sitting in the back. I have a perfect driving record, no criminal history, and am by a wide margin a net taxpayer.

Am I not responsible?

If we're going to use an arbitrary standard of "responsible" for being able to vote, I get to decide what it is, not you. Deal?

sawyerloggingon said:

So in your opinion Reagan was always right? Is he your God?

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not a fan of Reagan. The point is that the EITC was based on conservative principles and enjoyed partisan support. The idea that Republicans want to use a tax credit that they came up with as a weapon to disenfranchise citizens is mind-boggling.

In addition, the idea of democracy was once a core conservative value. I really don't know when conservatives and/or Republicans lost sight of that value; all I can surmise is that it's a result of Republicans blaming the voters when they don't vote for Republicans.

Deuce said:

I take the lives of my passengers into my hands every time I take off. I am entrusted with aircraft worth more money than you will ever have in your entire life, and that's not even counting the net worth of the people sitting in the back. I have a perfect driving record, no criminal history, and am by a wide margin a net taxpayer.

Am I not responsible?

If we're going to use an arbitrary standard of "responsible" for being able to vote, I get to decide what it is, not you. Deal?

Click to expand...

In another thread when you tried to deny you use lots of gasoline as you whine about AGW you said you fly a little two seat Cessna, now you fly a huge expensive plane or jet even? That's the trouble with telling lies, hard to keep your story's straight.:lol:

ChrisL said:

It's funny to me how we get some of the "gunnies" on here who are constantly talking about how precious the second amendment is to all citizens, to then come here and want to strip some citizens of their right to vote based upon their socioeconomic class. It's stunning actually. You would think they of all people would understand how important it is that all of our citizens have their rights unrestricted by the government.

Click to expand...

actually what the funniest part is to me, is how bad the OP completely failed. I mean somethings are actually debatable but using land ownership is a complete intellectual failure in 2013. Theres no educated rational even behind it. How many people in cities would it disqualify? There are no words to even explain how stupid that idea is.

Visbek said:

I'm certainly not a fan of Reagan. The point is that the EITC was based on conservative principles and enjoyed partisan support. The idea that Republicans want to use a tax credit that they came up with as a weapon to disenfranchise citizens is mind-boggling.

In addition, the idea of democracy was once a core conservative value. I really don't know when conservatives and/or Republicans lost sight of that value; all I can surmise is that it's a result of Republicans blaming the voters when they don't vote for Republicans.

Click to expand...

I am neither a republican or a conservative so your Reagan post meant zip to me. I am an independent thinker and what I think is too many unqualified people vote. We can argue with where the line should be drawn but there should be a line. Right now if you're not a convicted felon you can vote. I think we need a higher bar.

sawyerloggingon said:

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.

Click to expand...

The founders income was that only educated, wealthy men should vote. Having a taxable income isn't a sign that you're wealthy or educated. It means you would be giving the vote to burger flippers while denying it to retirees, stay-at-home mums and the disabled.

ChrisL said:

Oh really? Do you have an links or documentation to back up your allegations?

Click to expand...

Even the link you provided shows what I'm talking about by revealing nearly 47 million Americans are on food stamps. Are food stamps considered statutory procedure designed to promote the physical and material wellbeing of people in need (definition of welfare)? Yes. That is what welfare is. Government policy aimed at meeting the needs of needy people. Medicare meets this definition, and that covers about 50 million Americans (link). Medicaid covers 62 million (link).

You only achieve tiny numbers of people using welfare by defining welfare very narrowly, which is misleading.

Again, that does not constitute a low information voter. This is all only your opinion and nothing more.

Click to expand...

Information is not the basis on which I'm proposing discounting voting power among adults. I am proposing discounting the weight of the vote proportionally to the extent that voter relies on government assistance for his or her basic needs.

Visbek said:

I'm certainly not a fan of Reagan. The point is that the EITC was based on conservative principles and enjoyed partisan support. The idea that Republicans want to use a tax credit that they came up with as a weapon to disenfranchise citizens is mind-boggling.

In addition, the idea of democracy was once a core conservative value. I really don't know when conservatives and/or Republicans lost sight of that value; all I can surmise is that it's a result of Republicans blaming the voters when they don't vote for Republicans.

Click to expand...

That is the whole problem with partisanship. The only thing some people care about is their party. They don't even care about their fellow citizens, just their party politics. It's a sickness I think.

spud_meister said:

The founders income was that only educated, wealthy men should vote. Having a taxable income isn't a sign that you're wealthy or educated. It means you would be giving the vote to burger flippers while denying it to retirees, stay-at-home mums and the disabled.

Click to expand...

The formula for who is qualified to vote would obviously be more complex than anybody in here is willing to put the time into contriving but we could start with the low hanging fruit, crack whores with illegitimate kids on welfare would be a good place to get the ball rolling.

Neomalthusian said:

Even the link you provided shows what I'm talking about by revealing nearly 47 million Americans are on food stamps. Are food stamps considered statutory procedure designed to promote the physical and material wellbeing of people in need (definition of welfare)? Yes. That is what welfare is. Government policy aimed at meeting the needs of needy people. Medicare meets this definition, and that covers about 50 million Americans (link). Medicaid covers 62 million (link).

You only achieve tiny numbers of people using welfare by defining welfare very narrowly, which is misleading.



Information is not the basis on which I'm proposing discounting voting power among adults. I am proposing discounting the weight of the vote proportionally to the extent that voter relies on government assistance for his or her basic needs.

Click to expand...

Well if that's what you're using, then be prepared to strip the right to vote away from half the citizens in the United States. The economy sucks and people need help. I certainly don't see that as any kind of a reason to strip a right from a legitimate citizen, regardless of whether they are receiving help from taxpayer money. I would MUCH rather my taxpayer dollars pay for a poor American family than go to Pakistan or Afghanistan or whatever stan.

ChrisL said:

I've suggested that schools start teaching classes about finances, saving and budgeting.

Click to expand...

When I was in high school at least one year of that class was required to graduate. They called it Home Economics.

The teacher resembled Big Bird and taught how to balance a checkbook, manage a household budget, fill out a tax return, etc.

Muhammed said:

When I was in high school at least one year of that class was required to graduate. They called it Home Economics.

The teacher resembled Big Bird and taught how to balance a checkbook, manage a household budget, fill out a tax return, etc.

Click to expand...

I didn't learn any of that in school. Home Ec when I went was about sewing and cooking, and we had it in Middle School, not at all in high school.

Muhammed said:

When I was in high school at least one year of that class was required to graduate. They called it Home Economics.

The teacher resembled Big Bird and taught how to balance a checkbook, manage a household budget, fill out a tax return, etc.

Click to expand...

I took wood and metal shop, only girls took home economics in my day but really it's a good idea.

actuality the founders did not want people who had no stake in america to vote, becuase they knew that those with no interest, would use the power of the vote, to take from those that had an interest [property], using injustice to do it.


James madison--This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.



James Madison --The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts.[democracy] and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.



Property: James Madison, Property

Property: James Madison, Note to His Speech on the Right of Suffrage