• 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.
If you own property you own part of America and you want America to succeed. If you don't own property you are far more likely to vote for what is in your best interest instead of what is in America's best interest.

What about the I-Banker who rents a Manhattan condo and owns sizable stock in US companies. I'd wager he has more of a stake in this country than you and your property do.
 
Look at the politicians poor people general vote for. Those promising to take more money away from the rich, and give to them. Those promising for a larger bureaucracy. Look at who the rich are inclined to vote for. Those promising to reduce their redistribution of wealth to the leeches. Look at who the self proclaimed Tea party types vote for. those advocating a smaller government and less redistribution of wealth.
:lamo I bet you really believe that, too.

No, the rich vote for those who will allow them to take as much from the poor as they can, in insidious ways, if deemed appropriate. That's no less voting one's own interest, so spare us the noble-sounding empty rhetoric.

And you're supremely gullible if you actually believe that the so-called Tea Partiers would come through with their smaller government pledges. The Reps and the Conservatives have abandoned that ideal in practice at least two decades ago. (It boggles the brain cells that some people actually still fall for it.)
 
Comunitee.com said:
The rich have been the leeches since 1980.
Who?


Comunitee.com said:
And you people didn't seem to mind "big government" when it was Tricky Dick, Ronnie, Poppy and Dubya running it.
Well, Tricky Dicky was the last president to sign a budget into law that actually lowered the national debt. You fail there.

Ronald Raygun was fighting a cold war, and decisively won. The CCCP is no more. I have little to say good about the pair of Bush's, but the both did engage in real wars. They both had too many RINO genes for me.

Side thought... Anyone good with drawings and/or photoshop? What would a cross between a rino and elephant look like?


Comunitee.com said:
I also notice that the truly psychotic on the right are no longer calling themselves "conservatives" as in the heyday of Limbaugh and Gingrich. They now call themselves "libertarians."
maybe your labels don't properly apply? Maybe you don't understand these people? How valid are your assumptions?


Comunitee.com said:
Well, to paraphrase George Carlin -- who was a hell of a lot closer to being a true libertarian than you are -- If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do libertarians eat? Liberties.
Bad joke.
 
:lamo I bet you really believe that, too.

No, the rich vote for those who will allow them to take as much from the poor as they can, in insidious ways, if deemed appropriate. That's no less voting one's own interest, so spare us the noble-sounding empty rhetoric.

And you're supremely gullible if you actually believe that the so-called Tea Partiers would come through with their smaller government pledges. The Reps and the Conservatives have abandoned that ideal in practice at least two decades ago. (It boggles the brain cells that some people actually still fall for it.)
Please explain that.

It simply does not compute. I don't see anything immoral, wanting to have ones taxes reduced. I find it very offensive and immoral for people demanding government give them more of other people's money.

Are these "rich" asking the government to take "poor" people's money?
 
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.


In your message you declare that blacks and women are "dumb."

If you have anything of your life history demonstrating property owning men are smarter than "blacks" and "women" - do tell us all what that is.
 
Last edited:
Please explain that.

It simply does not compute. I don't see anything immoral, wanting to have ones taxes reduced. I find it very offensive and immoral for people demanding government give them more of other people's money.

Are these "rich" asking the government to take "poor" people's money?
I'm sure it doesn't compute to you. Then again, you're probably of the opinion that consumer protection laws are completely unnecessary. Corporations... generally run by "rich people"... are always the first to advocate, and lobby for, as few consumer protections laws as they can possibly get away with.

Just one example. Not that I expect you to accept or acknowledge it, of course, but it is also for other's consumption in the thread as well.
 
Kind of an all-or-nothing concept. What would qualify as "property?" Would some people look to buy a square foot of property in western Texas for the right to vote? And so on and so forth with a million more questions.

The underlying question is whether some people should have more voting rights or power than others. It already is this way. Children cannot vote.

The interesting question to me is not that welfare recipients or non-property owners should not be able to vote, or based entirely on taxes paid or not paid, but rather that perhaps people's vote should count only to the extent that they are autonomous adults. If 10% of your needs are met by social programs, you can cast 90% of a vote. If it's 100%, you don't get a vote. That way, even if you have $0.00 to your name and own no property, as long as you're not relying on public assistance, you still have a vote that counts.

To accept public assistance from government social welfare programs should be seen as a relinquishment of legal autonomy and independence, and with that should come a decreased weight in the power of one's vote (as well as other legal rights). You can't be a dependent while retaining all the rights and duties of independence. There has to be a trade-off. That's a lesson people should have learned in their teenage years.
 
What would be the point in restricting voters votes?

I don't and likely wouldn't favor any form of restrictions. If I did - and this is just a nonexistent if - then it would be that more voters are educated... BUT, then more government would equal more problems. People who couldn't receive an education nor pass, would feel restricted... And that would be bad if they still understood even the basics and voted based on who the best candidate was, based on the merits of their ideas, accomplishments, and experience. And not on personal qualities which are pretty much pointless to how good they would do.

So... see? Lots of things sound nice in theory, but don't work in practice.
 
True. I think it should be changed. Only productive citizens should vote, rather than those who vote politicians promising "leech" bills.
So if investors buy a house for 90k and sell it 20 months later for 180k with 10k invested in taxes, paint fees etc., they have been productive. Kool!
If someone bough BP after the spill and sold it a few months later for very much more than he paid he was productive.
If a company sells it rights to its logo to a PO box Cayman Island company that the owner of the company owns and pays himself rent that is essentially untaxed, for its use is productive.
I understand.
 
Well, times have changed. Then, our tax system was based primarily on taxation of property and tariffs. Now it is mostly funded by income taxation.

Those who are net users of government money rather than net contributors, are the ones who should not vote if that's what you are looking for.

A couple of others have pointed that out and it is food for thought.
 
Kind of an all-or-nothing concept. What would qualify as "property?" Would some people look to buy a square foot of property in western Texas for the right to vote? And so on and so forth with a million more questions.

The underlying question is whether some people should have more voting rights or power than others. It already is this way. Children cannot vote.

The interesting question to me is not that welfare recipients or non-property owners should not be able to vote, or based entirely on taxes paid or not paid, but rather that perhaps people's vote should count only to the extent that they are autonomous adults. If 10% of your needs are met by social programs, you can cast 90% of a vote. If it's 100%, you don't get a vote. That way, even if you have $0.00 to your name and own no property, as long as you're not relying on public assistance, you still have a vote that counts.

To accept public assistance from government social welfare programs should be seen as a relinquishment of legal autonomy and independence, and with that should come a decreased weight in the power of one's vote (as well as other legal rights). You can't be a dependent while retaining all the rights and duties of independence. There has to be a trade-off. That's a lesson people should have learned in their teenage years.

More food for thought and some good ideas.
 
Well, times have changed. Then, our tax system was based primarily on taxation of property and tariffs. Now it is mostly funded by income taxation.

Those who are net users of government money rather than net contributors, are the ones who should not vote if that's what you are looking for.

I would very much like to know if I and others are NET USERS or NET CONTRIBUTORS. Could you please post the formula so I can apply it and find out the answer to this question?
 
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.

I don't think property ownership is a good enough measure of proper citizenship and lack of land ownership a good enough measure of poor citizenship to take the vote away from those who don't own property.
 
The OP was based on frustration on our current system which is basically if you can breathe you can vote. Going back to the original system of only property owners voting would be far better than what we have now but as has been pointed out in here times have changed. We now get taxes from other than property tax so amending the original system to tax paying Americans instead of land owners has merit and I mean income tax not tax on your groceries you buy with food stamps. The essence of the 1776 rule should remain the same though, only contributing members of society should have the privilege of voting.
 
I would very much like to know if I and others are NET USERS or NET CONTRIBUTORS. Could you please post the formula so I can apply it and find out the answer to this question?

I know who isn't a net contributor, anyone on food stamps or welfare, we can start there.
 
I know who isn't a net contributor, anyone on food stamps or welfare, we can start there.

How did you make that determination?

Could you please publish the formula so all of us can apply it propertly to see if we are in which category?

Does it change from year to year? From month to month? Can it change weekly or daily?

What is included in the computation?
 
How did you make that determination?

Could you please publish the formula so all of us can apply it propertly to see if we are in which category?

Does it change from year to year? From month to month? Can it change weekly or daily?

What is included in the computation?

Pretty simple really, if you are on food stamps or welfare you can't vote and no you can't go off those programs on voting day and back on the day after.:lol:
 
Well first of all it's unconstitutional and a violation of basic rights in a democracy. Should renters not be able to vote? Restricting it to only those who pay income tax is also incredibly idiotic you disenfranchise people like students, those who can't work like disabled people, the unemployed who just their job because of economic recession or similar circumstance, etc. It would be so incredibly discriminatory it's amazing. Since I saw it in this thread literacy tests are also horrible and discriminatory.
 
Well first of all it's unconstitutional and a violation of basic rights in a democracy. Should renters not be able to vote? Restricting it to only those who pay income tax is also incredibly idiotic you disenfranchise people like students, those who can't work like disabled people, the unemployed who just their job because of economic recession or similar circumstance, etc. It would be so incredibly discriminatory it's amazing. Since I saw it in this thread literacy tests are also horrible and discriminatory.

Well first of all it is not unconstitutional, voting is not a constitutional right.
 
Pretty simple really, if you are on food stamps or welfare you can't vote and no you can't go off those programs on voting day and back on the day after.:lol:

Too simple really. I suspect you do not have the slightest idea as to what you are talking about and that is why you are avoiding like the plague answering the direct question: What is the formula I need to apply to my own life to see if I am a contributor or the opposite?

But please - prove me wrong - by giving me the formula. DO IT.
 
Well first of all it is not unconstitutional, voting is not a constitutional right.

The US Constitution mentions the right to vote five different times in five different places.
 
It simply does not compute. I don't see anything immoral, wanting to have ones taxes reduced. I find it very offensive and immoral for people demanding government give them more of other people's money.

Are these "rich" asking the government to take "poor" people's money?
Yes. What have these rich people done to justify it? They're not "job creators." They had 10 years of Bush Tax Cuts to create jobs, and they didn't do it. Frankly, they need to be punished, for fraud if nothing else.
 
15 pages in and still not one logical reason for this absurd idea and failed OP
 
Pretty simple really, if you are on food stamps or welfare you can't vote and no you can't go off those programs on voting day and back on the day after.:lol:
It would be far easier for them to get off those programs if the election resulted in politicians who passed jobs bills and minimum-wage increases. Therefore, they have the duty to vote, not just the right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom