• 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.
The problem with your argument is that it 1) assumes property ownership is an adequate measure of responsibility, 2) assumes that people come to own property primarily, or solely, because of hard work, and 3) assumes that the values you attribute to property owners are what the qualifications for voting should be measured by.
Property ownership means nothing now a days. I know many people who rent because their jobs take them all over. Why do a mortgage ever few years or have to sell a house every time you move?
Plus, renting can be even more of a responsibility. Its someone elses home and you have to take care of it.
 
So few words, so many fundamental errors...

• Voting is a right. Not a privilege.• Owning property is not a valid proxy for "good citizenship."
• Owning property is certainly not an indicator of intelligence or wisdom.
• Do you intend to disenfranchise people who inherited land?
• Property owners certainly aren't going to vote your way. If they did, Obama would not be President right now.

More critically, it is not acceptable, and profoundly un-American, to say that "only people who I expect to act like X get to vote." The reality is that when citizens are free, they are going to make decisions that you personally do not agree with. That is the essence of liberty in a society -- not just "I get to do what I want," but also allowing others to make their own choices about how to be governed and how to live.



...no, we require people to obey laws for a variety of reasons, including securing the safety of citizens. States often revoke the *cough* right to vote as an additional punishment.

Voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.
 
Kool. We get to vote 5 times! (That's if condos count, 4 otherwise.)
(Yup, and it should be limited to people that own property free and clear.
We have one mortgage on one property.)
Yup, we would get to vote 4 times in one state and once in another.
I'd even be for allowing people that own 100% of two or more real properties to vote.
 
Last edited:
Property ownership means nothing now a days. I know many people who rent because their jobs take them all over. Why do a mortgage ever few years or have to sell a house every time you move?
Plus, renting can be even more of a responsibility. Its someone elses home and you have to take care of it.
Yeah. I know that property ownership was a huge deal in the past, but it's definitely become less so recently, especially given how many people live in cities or live in places temporarily.
 
I question the moral right of properly ownership.....after all, the property was all but stolen from the original inhabitents..
I do not think people should own land....
As far as "wanting America to succeed" , I do not think that property owners have an exclusive on this...
I think that everyone wishes to succeed....however this is defined....
Sawyer, I think you are assuming too much.....
I'd say that most people (left and right) vote for what is in THEIR best interests...
Has such a question ever been polled ?
And, should not the peoples best interest and America's best interest be one and the same ???

No. All Property was fought for. The looser through out history got killed, got removed, or became citizens of the new owners. Its a argument that ticks me off alot. In europe, asia, africa, austrialia it was more or less fine that people got removed from there land due to theft, loss in war, treason, and trickery. but in north and south america its the worst ever? And the native people where fighting and tradeing territory long before the europeans showed up.
As far as should Property owners have exclusive votes... I'm more along the lines of vote should be limited to those that want to pay a set % of there income. Like 10% so the people that don't care at all or don't add anything to the system don't get a vote just "cuz". But anyone that wants to can. You want a say in the country pay for it.
Its the problem of that the vote of someone who spent hours doing 'homework' on the subjects and politics, has the same power as the vote just cuz the R or D, or something even more stupid. ( I like this one's race, or becuase I hated the other guys race. etc)
If there is a cost to voteing it won't elemenate knee jerk voteing but it will limit it to the people that actually care.
(but you would have to be very careful as it could be abused)
 
So in your opinion convicted felons, the insane and retarded people should vote?
There are conservatives who consider me to be "retarded"......I am emotional...........take away my voting rights and you die ! ...or both of us die....obviously, this is dangerous...
IMO, a man in prison should not vote, but I question this...
The insane ?
Depends on how insane and the definitions.....
 
Neither. While I would rather see only land-owners vote, I think a better criteria would be individuals who have paid a net positive number in taxes for the previous year. If you didn't pay anything, or if you received the entire amount of your tax burden back in a refund, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
Voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.
There are two possible answers to that.

1) "Voting is a privilege" in the US, because rights are not intrinsic; they are social constructions, granted by governments.
2) We do have intrinsic rights, and voting -- or more specifically, citizens having a say in how they are governed -- is one of them. The US just doesn't recognize it as a right.

Take your pick.

Oh, and you skipped several other critical objections. No surprise there.
 
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.

that might be the most illogical inane idea i read to day

theres no justification for this at all lol, frankly this suggestion is mentally retarded and void of any logic what so ever.
 
So you don't own property, as I thought.

Owning or not owning property does NOT determine the quality of the man...
It really has little to nothing to do with the "political process", which is people based.
Or, how far back do you wish to go, Sawyer ?
Kings and queens
tribal chiefs and constant warfare
king of the hill - the strongest takes all ... much like wild animals..
 
Why stop with property ownership?

• Let's disenfranchise senior citizens. Obviously, they care more about getting their free medical care and free money more than the health of the union.
• Let's disenfranchise anyone without a college education. People who can't finish college obviously aren't responsible enough to vote.
• Unemployment! Surely if you can't hold down a job, you will want the state to take care of you, and aren't responsible enough to vote.
• Let's require military service. If you don't love your country enough to shoot people for it, obviously you don't deserve to vote.
• How about a requirement to own stock, in an American company? Obviously that gives you skin in the game.

Oh, screw it. Let's just give everyone a test. If anyone disagrees with Sawyer on any policy positions, they don't get to vote. I'm sure that will bring the number of eligible voters down to the original 5%. :D
 
There are two possible answers to that.

1) "Voting is a privilege" in the US, because rights are not intrinsic; they are social constructions, granted by governments.
2) We do have intrinsic rights, and voting -- or more specifically, citizens having a say in how they are governed -- is one of them. The US just doesn't recognize it as a right.

Take your pick.

Oh, and you skipped several other critical objections. No surprise there.

I focused on your first point because it was so critically wrong. Besides I don't play that game where you ask a dozen questions and "demand" I answer every one of them or accuse me of running. That is not honest debate it is cheap liberal tricks. The fact remains that their is no right to vote as their is a right to free speech for instance and try as you might to deny it voting is a privilege not a right.
 
So few words, so many fundamental errors...

• Voting is a right. Not a privilege.
• Owning property is not a valid proxy for "good citizenship."
• Owning property is certainly not an indicator of intelligence or wisdom.
• Do you intend to disenfranchise people who inherited land?
• Property owners certainly aren't going to vote your way. If they did, Obama would not be President right now.

More critically, it is not acceptable, and profoundly un-American, to say that "only people who I expect to act like X get to vote." The reality is that when citizens are free, they are going to make decisions that you personally do not agree with. That is the essence of liberty in a society -- not just "I get to do what I want," but also allowing others to make their own choices about how to be governed and how to live.



...no, we require people to obey laws for a variety of reasons, including securing the safety of citizens. States often revoke the *cough* right to vote as an additional punishment.

1) Depends how you mean "a Right". IMHO: Right= something that will happen regardless of what anyone says or dosen't say.
In that view its not a right.
(Free Speach is a right as in you can't stop people from saying anything you can punish them afterward but you can't stop them in the first place)
2) True. Owning Land dosen't automaticly make good citizenship. But it dose mean if you want to profit from the land you have a vested intrest in the area, and it's laws and goverment.
3)Also True. it just a measurement of vested intrest. this point was mostly a restatement of point 2.
4) Why would that factor in? Its not unheard of for landed gentry, in the past anyway, to pass there vote on to there children.
5) Also a moot point as people will vote the way they want regardless how they get the vote. Its less likely to be a flippent or knee jerk vote if it cost them to make the vote but people will vote for what they think is best for the country, or themselves. (As most people think of themselves as part of the country)

As for the rest of your comment.... Amen good Brother AMEN.
 
Owning or not owning property does NOT determine the quality of the man...
It really has little to nothing to do with the "political process", which is people based.
Or, how far back do you wish to go, Sawyer ?
Kings and queens
tribal chiefs and constant warfare
king of the hill - the strongest takes all ... much like wild animals..
Yup. How about you can't vote unless you have a business operating out of an PO Box in the Cayman Islands? That would keep the uneducated and ill informed from voting for people or programs that would help them.
 
Owning or not owning property does NOT determine the quality of the man...
It really has little to nothing to do with the "political process", which is people based.
Or, how far back do you wish to go, Sawyer ?
Kings and queens
tribal chiefs and constant warfare
king of the hill - the strongest takes all ... much like wild animals..

1776 no farther.
 
This whole idea is utterly ****ing braindead. You know what group in America doesn't own land very often? Soldiers who live on military bases.
 
If you are on welfare will you vote for welfare reform?

Y'u betcha.....
I would, BUT reform and improvement NOT elimination .....
And, yes, I am sure that there are children(adults of all ages) who would just vote for more.....based on greed , not merit....we should take the "good" with the "bad" .
 
You betcha.....
I would, BUT reform and improvement NOT elimination .....
And, yes, I am sure that there are children(adults of all ages) who would just vote for more.....based on greed , not merit....we should take the "good" with the "bad" .

If you were on welfare you would vote for more welfare.
 
Anyway I have to get to work and thank you to the few people that debated this topic intelligently. The rest of you that went ballistic and threw temper tantrums reinforce my opinion in the OP. You react emotionally and are not property owners because you have made poor decisions for yourselves and IMO you should not be allowed to make poor decisions for America. GET A JOB!
 
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.
At the risk of being labeled a grammar-nazi, remember... paragraphs are your friend. Just sayin'.

Anyway, ummm... no.

1) The property ownership rule was not because they owned property and were thus deemed responsible. It was because most taxes were collected via property taxes. That has changed. Now, taxes are collected via a myriad of ways, primarily the income tax, but also including sales taxes, (purposely) hidden taxes in product prices, etc. In effect, we are ALL taxpayers. As taxpayers, we all have a vested interest in the doings of our government. Everybody, bar none, has skin in the game. Whether we like it or not.

2) The lowering of age to 18 has been negligible. Most people between 18 and 21 don't care and thus don't vote.

3) Today, society has changed. Many fine and intelligent people choose to not own property. Yet they are stable and capable people nonetheless. On the flip side, I know morons who have inherited property. Property ownership doesn't mean anything anymore as far as this issue goes. Really, it is my belief that the people who clamor for it now... and probably even those who enforced it back then... don't really give a rat's behind about stable people voting, they just want to try and artificially limit the voting rolls to people that are more likely to vote like themselves.

4) The only thing that holds us back from making better choices in elections is voter apathy and naivete, and that infection spreads across all demographics. Too many homeowners and renters alike place more importance on Entertainment Tonight than the next election.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom