• 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.
Visbek said:
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).
Click to expand...

Gawd, you're so ignorant of this discussion, it's pathetic...
 
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...

How about, anyone who holds foreign investments loses the right to vote? Anyone who spends significant time overseas in a non-military capacity? Any business owner with a significant number of overseas employees? Anyone who offshores a specific number of jobs? Anyone who trades significantly in foreign goods? That plus literacy tests, entitlement tests and other hokum floating in this thread should pretty much limit voting to a handful of true, self-sufficient patriots. :p

Or, maybe we can just let every citizen vote.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You're correct, it is my opinion (belief) just as anything else you or I might post on a political website...
Click to expand...

Well it is your belief that their political beliefs are wrong and need to be changed. The basis for your belief in their disenfranchisement is your rejection of their political views. We shouldn't be taking away suffrage based on that.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Gawd, you're so ignorant of this discussion, it's pathetic...
Click to expand...
You cited the increase in people receiving benefits. A big chunk of that increase is people retiring.

Not to mention that the increase in, for example, food stamp eligibility dates back to everyone's favorite "compassionate conservative," Bush 43. The big temporary increase in unemployment is due to -- wait for it -- a massive recession. Or do you genuinely believe that a large group of Americans all decided not to work, so they could collect that sweet $250/month in food stamps?

I'm not missing anything.
 
Anagram said:
Well it is your belief that their political beliefs are wrong and need to be changed. The basis for your belief in their disenfranchisement is your rejection of their political views. We shouldn't be taking away suffrage based on that.
Click to expand...

How many times is it necessary that it would be about behavior, not beliefs? Is this concept really that hard? You have seemed to agree in previous posts...
 
Visbek said:
You cited the increase in people receiving benefits. A big chunk of that increase is people retiring.

Not to mention that the increase in, for example, food stamp eligibility dates back to everyone's favorite "compassionate conservative," Bush 43. The big temporary increase in unemployment is due to -- wait for it -- a massive recession. Or do you genuinely believe that a large group of Americans all decided not to work, so they could collect that sweet $250/month in food stamps?

I'm not missing anything.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if you're too lazy to read my initial post, that's not my fault...
 
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...
As if tax dollars are the only meaningful contribution to society. Stay at home moms, retirees and students, among others, should have their interests represented as any other.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm sorry, but if you're too lazy to read my initial post, that's not my fault...
Click to expand...
I read and responded to it. I guess you missed it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/173743-only-property-owners-should-vote-21.html#post1062358832

You've come up with a separate argument to which I have responded, namely that "for the crime of collecting a benefit, citizens should be disenfranchised, no trial necessary." Given the variety of reasons why someone might collect benefits, this is unacceptable.

For example: What about veterans? If a vet has PTSD and has to collect food stamps, should he or she also have a "time out" from voting, so they can think about the bad things they're doing by receiving taxpayer dollars?

Gussy it up how you like. It's just another example of someone trying to prevent poor people from having any say in how they are governed.
 
In Washington's time, land owners were the most likely to be educated, literate men of business. They had to be, because we didn't have the broad institution of finance and loans that allow anyone with (hell these days, even without) credit to buy property. Limiting voting rights to land owners won't guarantee anything. A test that requires people to demonstrate that they understand the functions and workings of our government, and the Constitution would be a far superior filter that ensures quality voting, instead of votes from idiots who constantly fall for the same broken promises.
 
Visbek said:
I read and responded to it. I guess you missed it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/173743-only-property-owners-should-vote-21.html#post1062358832

You've come up with a separate argument to which I have responded, namely that "for the crime of collecting a benefit, citizens should be disenfranchised, no trial necessary." Given the variety of reasons why someone might collect benefits, this is unacceptable.

For example: What about veterans? If a vet has PTSD and has to collect food stamps, should he or she also have a "time out" from voting, so they can think about the bad things they're doing by receiving taxpayer dollars?

Gussy it up how you like. It's just another example of someone trying to prevent poor people from having any say in how they are governed.
Click to expand...

Why did you choose to use a chart of our aging population to make a point? If you want to remain on topic with what I have posted, I'm here and will respond though not to straw men replies...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
How many times is it necessary that it would be about behavior, not beliefs? Is this concept really that hard? You have seemed to agree in previous posts...
Click to expand...

You're missing my point. The behavior and beliefs are connected. It's not universally accepted the behavior is wrong and needs to be changed, it's your belief. It's my belief too but it isn't everyone's. they disagree that it is harmful and needs to be changed. Suffrage shouldn't be taken away based on conflicting beliefs.
 
Anagram said:
You're missing my point. The behavior and beliefs are connected. It's not universally accepted the behavior is wrong and needs to be changed, it's your belief. It's my belief too but it isn't everyone's. they disagree that it is harmful and needs to be changed. Suffrage shouldn't be taken away based on conflicting beliefs.
Click to expand...

So you're fine with our never ending expansion dependence on entitlement programs to appease those who receive the benefits at the detriment of the country?
 
I'd be fine with a property requirement, so long as:

1. All disenfranchised people are exempt from any and all taxes.
2. No disenfranchised person may be conscripted for military service. Any disenfranchised people who join the military are automatically rewarded with property upon their return from service.
3. Jail time for a disenfranchised person is less than half that of someone eligible for voting. If they don't get to determine what the law is, they should not be as affected by it.

As you can see, we'd have to radically change our legal system just to make property disenfranchisement remotely fair. I'm actually one of those who believe that adequate housing is a human right, so we'd basically be taking away someone's right because they don't have access to another right.
 
The real problem is not who votes but rather the tax system. we would solve a lot of problems if we didn't have a tax system that encourages those who have no skin in the tax game or are net tax consumers, to vote for big spenders because they don't receive the proper feedback (in terms of increased taxes) for the increased spending.

a consumption or sales tax or even a flat tax where a hike on the rates affects all voters would be a solution to this problem-a solution that is constitutional unlike the proposed one.

In the alternative, everyone should vote but those who are forced to pay more under our corrupt vote buying system, should have more votes
 
AlabamaPaul said:
So you're fine with our never ending expansion dependence on entitlement programs to appease those who receive the benefits at the detriment of the country?
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely not fine with that. But like I said before I don't think your idea is an acceptable solution to the problem.
 
Anagram said:
I'm absolutely not fine with that. But like I said before I don't think your idea is an acceptable solution to the problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what a rational objection might be...
 
TurtleDude said:
The real problem is not who votes but rather the tax system. we would solve a lot of problems if we didn't have a tax system that encourages those who have no skin in the tax game or are net tax consumers, to vote for big spenders because they don't receive the proper feedback (in terms of increased taxes) for the increased spending.

a consumption or sales tax or even a flat tax where a hike on the rates affects all voters would be a solution to this problem-a solution that is constitutional unlike the proposed one.

In the alternative, everyone should vote but those who are forced to pay more under our corrupt vote buying system, should have more votes
Click to expand...

I think this is a better tactic for going after the problem than trying to limit who can vote.
 
Anagram said:
I think this is a better tactic for going after the problem than trying to limit who can vote.
Click to expand...

It's just a different form of limiting a person's vote, and one that would be much more difficult to implement and police...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
It's just a different form of limiting a person's vote, and one that would be much more difficult to implement and police...
Click to expand...

Going after the incentives in the tax system. I actually meant to disagree with his last paragraph
 
sawyerloggingon said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the moneyed class doesn't vote in its own self-interest? That's absurd.

This country doesn't just belong to those who own property.
 
Kobie said:
And the moneyed class doesn't vote in its own self-interest? That's absurd.

This country doesn't just belong to those who own property.
Click to expand...

so you are saying that those of us who are rich and vote for less government are voting for our own interests vs Rich socialists who vote for more government?

by George you are right

and the biggest divide among us in the top one percent are those of us who are rich DESPITE the government vs those who are RICH because of it
 
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...

While I sympathize with your desire to have a more invested, intelligent electorate, any idea you come up with to change the current system is never going to happen. Once you go to certain points, it is impossible to turn back whether the result would be better or not. Once you allow universal suffrage above the age of 18 with no other qualifying requirements, you cannot take that right away. For better or worse.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
As defined in 1776 property is land.

"Only people who own land can vote
Declaration of Independence signed. Right to vote during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods is restricted to property owners—most of whom are white male Protestants over the age of 21."
Click to expand...

As defined in 1776, people could also be property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom