• 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.
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.

People getting free money will vote for more free money not jobs and that is precisely why they should not be allowed to vote.
 
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 think raising the voting age to 21 has merit or at least should be considered. One has to remember when the voting age was lowered, so to was the drinking age lowered to 18. One of the driving forces was to give those young members of the armed forces a say in government. Now that the draft is no longer and that the drinking age has been raised back to 21, perhaps it is time to raise the voting age back up too.

But I will have to give this some more thought before I come down on one side or the other. But this portion is worth thinking about.
 
I think raising the voting age to 21 has merit or at least should be considered. One has to remember when the voting age was lowered, so to was the drinking age lowered to 18. One of the driving forces was to give those young members of the armed forces a say in government. Now that the draft is no longer and that the drinking age has been raised back to 21, perhaps it is time to raise the voting age back up too.

But I will have to give this some more thought before I come down on one side or the other. But this portion is worth thinking about.

On the age issue I agreed with lowering it when there was a draft but as you say that is gone and I think the vote should be gone with it. We have school kids with no life experience choosing our leaders.

EDIT: In fact the case could be made for raising it to 30.
 
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.

The idea that 18 year olds and non-property owners don't have a stake is completely false. The laws our elected officials create effect everyone. I do not think that before 1856 only property owners were sent to war or drafted for military or militia service.

That said I think tax increases should only be voted on by the voters whom those tax increases will effect,for example if we want to increase taxes on people who make fifty thousand or more a year then only voters who make fifty thousand or more a year can vote on those tax increases and any tax increases on tobacco will only be voted on by tobacco users, and so on.
 
That would be yes.

So a fundamental value of the United States is not a right? So the president could restrict the vote to a select few individuals thus creating an oligarchy and nothing legally would be wrong with that? Wasn't voting and democratic participation a fundamental American value?
 
As of this time, the votes are 36-1 against this asinine, right wing nonsense. This may be a new record for polls of this kind.
 
Stay out of those left wing web sites, they tend to take things out of context.

It - the right to vote - is in the US Constitution in five different places. Do you consider that a left wing web site? :doh:roll:
 
The idea that 18 year olds and non-property owners don't have a stake is completely false. The laws our elected officials create effect everyone. I do not think that before 1856 only property owners were sent to war or drafted for military or militia service.

That said I think tax increases should only be voted on by the voters whom those tax increases will effect,for example if we want to increase taxes on people who make fifty thousand or more a year then only voters who make fifty thousand or more a year can vote on those tax increases and any tax increases on tobacco will only be voted on by tobacco users, and so on.

My position on this has evolved on this since I read all the post between my OP and my lunch break. You'd have to go back a dozen post or so.

Post # 140
 
Last edited:
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.

In HIS life history? In the immortal words of Robert Hays, "Surely, you can't be serious."
 
As of this time, the votes are 36-1 against this asinine, right wing nonsense. This may be a new record for polls of this kind.

I agree but the poll is also private which in most cases is the worse way to make a poll, usually they just get spammed but this idea was so mentally retarded and such a complete failure not even a spammer wanted to play along.
 
So a fundamental value of the United States is not a right? So the president could restrict the vote to a select few individuals thus creating an oligarchy and nothing legally would be wrong with that? Wasn't voting and democratic participation a fundamental American value?

"Rights" are clearly spelled out in the Bill Of Rights and there is no right to vote.
 
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.

You do realize that includes people who live in apartments cant vote since they technically don't own a home or land . If you suggest that people who live in apartments are on the fringe of society you are wrong. Its expensive to own a home and maintain it as well as they aren't going to vote for someone who will keep apartment prices down and will not have a biased for it . ( since no one brings that as a issue with voting )
 
On the age issue I agreed with lowering it when there was a draft but as you say that is gone and I think the vote should be gone with it. We have school kids with no life experience choosing our leaders.

EDIT: In fact the case could be made for raising it to 30.

Besides the draft, back then most kids did not go to college, having a HS diploma was an accomplishment. A lot of kids dropped out of HS and went to work on farms and in factories. So by the age of 21 it was expected each individual would be out of school and on their own. I mean they would have a bit of real world experiences under their belt instead of just theories given to them by teachers. They would have had time to see if those theories worked and how they effected the masses. The higher age would limit the number of impressionable individuals, give them to evaluate and make decision based on their own experiences and less on impressions other relay to them.
I do think 30 is too high, perhaps 24 or 25.

But then again, how many people actually weight the issues, follow politics and governance. Very darn few. So does the age really make all that much of a difference?
 
You do realize that includes people who live in apartments cant vote since they technically don't own a home or land . If you suggest that people who live in apartments are on the fringe of society you are wrong. Its expensive to own a home and maintain it as well as they aren't going to vote for someone who will keep apartment prices down and will not have a biased for it . ( since no one brings that as a issue with voting )

My position has evolved, I should start a new thread.:lol:

post # 140
 
Last edited:
Besides the draft, back then most kids did not go to college, having a HS diploma was an accomplishment. A lot of kids dropped out of HS and went to work on farms and in factories. So by the age of 21 it was expected each individual would be out of school and on their own. I mean they would have a bit of real world experiences under their belt instead of just theories given to them by teachers. They would have had time to see if those theories worked and how they effected the masses. The higher age would limit the number of impressionable individuals, give them to evaluate and make decision based on their own experiences and less on impressions other relay to them.
I do think 30 is too high, perhaps 24 or 25.

But then again, how many people actually weight the issues, follow politics and governance. Very darn few. So does the age really make all that much of a difference?

Age gives life experience that is invaluable when assessing who and what to vote for or against. When I was 18 I was a super lib that didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. By the time I was 30 I was well down the road to abandoning my childish dreams.
 
Age gives life experience that is invaluable when assessing who and what to vote for or against. When I was 18 I was a super lib that didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. By the time I was 30 I was well down the road to abandoning my childish dreams.

You can get shot at and trained for war but you cant vote see something wrong with that picture . Most Of the immature 18 teens probably wouldn't vote any way . They would be to busy with their phones .
 
Age gives life experience that is invaluable when assessing who and what to vote for or against. When I was 18 I was a super lib that didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. By the time I was 30 I was well down the road to abandoning my childish dreams.
You mean your childhood dreams. Being a right-winger and publicly calling yourself an "Independent" is pretty childish.

Like the saying goes: 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.

Which still doesn't explain which is which. "Who is John Galt"? A terrorist who caused more damage than any orc.
 
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.

A formula would have to be created, as this is still a proposal. But okay: Divide your personal expenditures in various areas (health care, food, utilities, housing, transportation, child care, etc.) by the amount of government assistance you received in those areas (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, WIC, Section 8, etc. etc.), average them, and, if the result is less than 1, that is the percentage weight your vote carries.

That way people on welfare are still able to vote, but the vote is weighted proportionally to the extent that they're independent adults with respect to meeting their own needs.
 
Last edited:
I am in favor of restricting the vote to as few people as possible, ideally none.

To me, this is a step in the right direction.
 
The OP was based on frustration on our current system which is basically if you can breathe you can vote.
If you can breathe, and you're a citizen, you should have a say in how government affects your life.

It is a failing, not an advantage, of the US Constitution that the right to vote is not explicitly spelled out.


The essence of the 1776 rule should remain the same though, only contributing members of society should have the privilege of voting....

....the case could be made for raising [the age requirement] to 30.
Your policy recommendations may have changed, but the intention obviously has not. Your goal is to disenfranchise people who vote differently than you. You can't even be bothered to base your position on principle -- it's all based on the consequence of someone voting for things you don't like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom