• 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.
Anagram said:
I don't really have one besides promoting the message and helping it spread. But I do believe that your solution would only make things worse.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the only one that would make people think about their behavior and subsequent consequences. It's not like I'm suggesting people would lose the privilege forever, but it would be suspended while they were receiving entitlement payments...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Actually, it's the only one that would make people think about their behavior and subsequent consequences. It's not like I'm suggesting people would lose the privilege forever, but it would be suspended while they were receiving entitlement payments...
Click to expand...

I think there are two main problems with it. For one throughout history almost every group lacking political power has ended up exploited. It would end up in a cycle anyway. Benefits would shrink enough it would no longer be worth it to lose the right to vote. They'd regain the right to vote, reinstate the benefits and end likely end the requirement to vote.

For another, I don't think it's right to take away rights or privileges over political beliefs or belonging to a group likely to have certain beliefs.
 
Anagram said:
I think there are two main problems with it. For one throughout history almost every group lacking political power has ended up exploited. It would end up in a cycle anyway. Benefits would shrink enough it would no longer be worth it to lose the right to vote. They'd regain the right to vote, reinstate the benefits and end likely end the requirement to vote.

For another, I don't think it's right to take away rights or privileges over political beliefs or belonging to a group likely to have certain beliefs.
Click to expand...

It's not about beliefs; it's about behavior and wanting to earn the privilege of voting in federal elections...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
My position has evolved, I should start a new thread.:lol:

post # 140
Click to expand...

What you really want to say is that people who are likely to vote Democratic should not be allowed to vote. Say what you mean in your poll.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Actually, it's the only one that would make people think about their behavior and subsequent consequences. It's not like I'm suggesting people would lose the privilege forever, but it would be suspended while they were receiving entitlement payments...
Click to expand...

So that would be anybody on Social Security or on a military pension. Unless you don't really mean entitlement programs. Sometimes it's hard to tell exactly what you mean with you guys.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
So, in your simplistic view, my four year old granddaughter should have a say in how government affects her life?
Click to expand...
Your 4 year old has not yet reached the age of majority. She has limited rights and obligations until she is 18.


The Constitution left it up to the States to determine the qualifications to vote....
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean that "there is no right to vote." It means the US Constitution does not properly recognize the right to vote.


It has since been modified to deny States the ability to disenfranchise individuals based on certain characteristics.
Click to expand...
That has no effect on the general principle that all citizens have a right to vote. E.g. you have the right to travel freely, but if you're convicted of a crime then you temporarily lose that right.


Now that tax dollars forcibly sent to the federal government by individuals and subsequently sent to other individuals to meet basic needs, there should be a discussion on this subject.
Click to expand...
Elected officials routinely decide on how tax dollars are allocated.

You should also keep in mind that when laws about tax exemptions were passed, no one included the idea that "if you do not pay X in taxes, you will be disenfranchised."


IMV, any individual who has received an entitlement payment (excluding SS and Medicare) within 180 days of a federal election should be disenfranchised from voting as they would likely vote for a candidate that supported continuation of those payments...
Click to expand...
Why exclude Social Security and Medicare?

Oh wait, I know: You just want to screw the poor. I'm sure that once they are disenfranchised, there won't be any negative consequences for having entire swaths of the country unable to vote. It'll be just like. oh... being black in Alabama in the 1930s.
 
Wiggen said:
So that would be anybody on Social Security or on a military pension. Unless you don't really mean entitlement programs. Sometimes it's hard to tell exactly what you mean with you guys.
Click to expand...

You would need to read my initial post. SS and Medicare are forced insurance programs, not entitlement, neither are military retirement benefits an "entitlement"...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

So instead of having the young and the poor voting for welfare for themselves you'll have property owners voting for welfare for themselves?

No thanks.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
It's not about beliefs; it's about behavior and wanting to earn the privilege of voting in federal elections...
Click to expand...

It's about the way they are likely to vote. They vote roughly the same way concerned with their interests as other groups. As far as I'm concerned they've earned it as much as anyone. I'd like to limit it to only those who put the nations best interests over their own, but there's no practical way to do that.
 
Neomalthusian said:
No, it's about rights being commensurate with responsibilities.
Click to expand...
Sawyer has made numerous statements to the effect that "people who not do X will vote for policy Y." His intention is very clear.

In addition, rights are not contingent upon paying taxes. If I have no income for 2 years, I do not lose the right to freedom of speech.


Imagine three children trying to democratically vote themselves allowances of 60% of the parents' income. One person, one vote, 20% of the family income. Sound fair?
Click to expand...
No, that sounds like a straw man.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Actually, it's the only one that would make people think about their behavior and subsequent consequences. It's not like I'm suggesting people would lose the privilege forever, but it would be suspended while they were receiving entitlement payments...
Click to expand...
Unless you're willing to exempt them from all taxes while the are prohibited from voting... including gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and so on... then this idea is just selectively punitive.
 
Anagram said:
It's about the way they are likely to vote. They vote roughly the same way concerned with their interests as other groups. As far as I'm concerned they've earned it as much as anyone. I'd like to limit it to only those who put the nations best interests over their own, but there's no practical way to do that.
Click to expand...

Do you think there are only members of one party receiving these benefits? Again, it's about changing behavior and providing a goal to move toward...
 
radcen said:
Unless you're willing to exempt them from all taxes while the are prohibited from voting... including gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and so on... then this idea is just selectively punitive.
Click to expand...

Can I also be exempt from paying taxes to provide support for other individuals?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Put in context their is no spelled out right to vote.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can then explain why the Constitution uses the phrase RIGHT TO VOTE or a variation of that same idea then five different times in five different places if it is not a RIGHT?

It does not say the ability to vote but the RIGHT TO VOTE.

It does not say the power to vote but the RIGHT TO VOTE.

It does not say the act of casting a vote but RIGHT TO VOTE.

It does not say the privilege of casting a vote but the RIGHT TO VOTE.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Do you think there are only members of one party receiving these benefits? Again, it's about changing behavior and providing a goal to move toward...
Click to expand...

You believe their behavior needs to be changed. I agree with you. But they disagree. We shouldn't take suffrage away over differences in political beliefs.
 
Anagram said:
You believe their behavior needs to be changed. I agree with you. But they disagree. We shouldn't take suffrage away over differences in political beliefs.
Click to expand...

IT'S NOT ABOUT BELIEFS and certainly about suffrage...
 
Rocketman said:
I think only taxpayers should be allowed to vote, if you aren't literally contributing to our society why should you have any say in it?
Click to expand...

do you know of any adult who does not pay tax?
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if I get no government assistance, then I am a NET TAXPAYER?

Why is Social Security being included into the formula since I have already paid for that?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
IT'S NOT ABOUT BELIEFS and certainly about suffrage...
Click to expand...

It's about beliefs. You believe their behavior needs to change and that its bad for America. I think you're generally right, but its still your belief and they disagree.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
With the percentage continually rising for those receiving benefits, the problem should be obvious...
Click to expand...
Yes, too bad that problem has nothing to do with people allegedly choosing not to work.

The big upcoming increase in in entitlement spending is for senior citizens. Since you missed it, the Baby Boomers are on their way to retirement, and they are collecting Social Security (which they've paid into) and Medicare. There are fewer people of younger ages who are able to generate tax revenue to pay for their benefits.

CP02_fig11a.png


This has nothing to do with people who get *cough* BIPARTISAN tax breaks on their income taxes (and not their payroll taxes).
 
Anagram said:
It's about beliefs. You believe their behavior needs to change and that its bad for America. I think you're generally right, but its still your belief and they disagree.
Click to expand...

You're correct, it is my opinion (belief) just as anything else you or I might post on a political website...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I would gladly give up my vote not to be taxed...
Click to expand...
Wow, that is some statement. You would sell out your franchise, your right.....just so you would not have to pay your part to be in this government.

What a disgusting freeloader position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom