• 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.

How do jobs bills and minimum wage increases create jobs?
 
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.

Wrong. When those programs were created we had 12% in poverty, we now have 15% in poverty. The federal gov't now spends more money than it dare ask for via direct taxation. Only 3% of the workforce gets minimum wage, strive to join the 97%. ;)
 
Maybe property owners should be the only people to have the right to free speech? Or the right to own guns? I wonder how that would fly with our elitist, classist OP? After all, why benefit from the rights granted in the Bill of Rights if you don't have "skin in the game"?

I guess, according to some, rights should depend upon your possessions. I don't really know how anyone can be seriously considering this. We ALL pay taxes in one form or another.
 
I guess, according to some, rights should depend upon your possessions. I don't really know how anyone can be seriously considering this. We ALL pay taxes in one form or another.
That's an interesting concept, and not without merit in light of the Modern Left's apparent position that responsibility should depend upon one's possessions.
 
That's an interesting concept, and not without merit in light of the Modern Left's apparent position that responsibility should depend upon one's possessions.

Whatever, we are all supposed to be equal in this country. Our government does not get to dole out rights to those who they think are "deserving." Its preposterous.
 
Our government does not get to dole out rights to those who they think are "deserving." Its preposterous.

Well... they do sometimes. They dole out the right to build a business with taxpayer funding, they dole out the right to opt out of healthcare. It's not without precedent.
 
Well... they do sometimes. They dole out the right to build a business with taxpayer funding, they dole out the right to opt out of healthcare. It's not without precedent.

Neither of those are rights.
 
I'm not sure that voters should only be property owners, but I'd certainly entertain the idea that only tax payers should be allowed to vote in federal elections. (After passing a one-time literacy test.) I think that no more than 25% of adults should typically be engaged in voting in federal elections. No one ignorant of the issues should ever vote as a matter of conscience.

Everyone pays sales tax. And everyone pays into SSN taxes so I am not sure who doesn't pay taxes to the state and federal level. I think you would only be disenfranchising homeless people which doesn't seem worth it to me. Please if only people who are engaged in the issues can vote, I doubt you could get those who could vote up to 25%.
 
Whatever, we are all supposed to be equal in this country. Our government does not get to dole out rights to those who they think are "deserving." Its preposterous.

No we are not. The laws are to apply equally to us all, which they certainly do not, or a progressive tax would be impossible, as would public assistance.

It is moreover quite the popular and vapid myth that any law, custom, policy, decree, ruling or command of man can ever make one person equal to another, with the possible exception that they can make people equal in death.

Myself, could I, I would disenfranchise many people from the vote. The poorly educated for instance, the indolent and so forth.

But can you give a good set of reasons -- not statements of philosophy, but reasons, why a republic should allow people who are incapable of voting responsibly to do so?
 
Everyone pays sales tax. And everyone pays into SSN taxes so I am not sure who doesn't pay taxes to the state and federal level. I think you would only be disenfranchising homeless people which doesn't seem worth it to me. Please if only people who are engaged in the issues can vote, I doubt you could get those who could vote up to 25%.

The concept is utterly ridiculous and would disenfranchise most poor people. Obviously there's a lot of hatred here for the poor. It's quite sad and pathetic.
 
No we are not. The laws are to apply equally to us all, which they certainly do not, or a progressive tax would be impossible, as would public assistance.

It is moreover quite the popular and vapid myth that any law, custom, policy, decree, ruling or command of man can ever make one person equal to another, with the possible exception that they can make people equal in death.

Myself, could I, I would disenfranchise many people from the vote. The poorly educated for instance, the indolent and so forth.

But can you give a good set of reasons -- not statements of philosophy, but reasons, why a republic should allow people who are incapable of voting responsibly to do so?

Obviously, by the question you posed, you don't understand the concept of RIGHTS.
 
Everyone pays sales tax. And everyone pays into SSN taxes so I am not sure who doesn't pay taxes to the state and federal level. I think you would only be disenfranchising homeless people which doesn't seem worth it to me. Please if only people who are engaged in the issues can vote, I doubt you could get those who could vote up to 25%.

People whose funds come entirely from the State as largess can pay taxes only in an abstract, and fairly ridiculous fashion. In effect, they are merely a conduit to transfer public funds from one account to another. They do not pay of their produced value, or to use an old metaphor, "not from the sweat of their brow." We may safely ignore the taxes that they "pay."
 
The right to healthcare certainly is... it's now required for every person in America.

It's not a right in the Constitution, like voting. The only way the government is getting away with this is because they are calling it a "tax." If you don't have health insurance, you don't get thrown in jail, you get a tax penalty.
 
If you get no government assistance, you meet your own needs independently....
What about tax breaks? If I'm getting a tax break on the interest payments for my mortgage, is that not a form of "government assistance?"

How about farm subsidies? I'm pretty sure if we disenfranchised every farmer who takes a subsidy, it'll be a lot easier to reduce the costs of the farm bill.

How about public transportation? Millions of Americans rely on public transportation systems that usually run at a loss. Do you lose the right to vote if you don't own a car?

Oh, wait. If you own a car, then you're using highways built, owned and operated by the government. Why isn't that classified as a handout?



Children get no vote because they're fully dependents of others.
The reason why children don't vote is because they have not reached the age of majority, and are not considered mature enough to accept the full range of rights and responsibilities.


Adults on public assistance are usually somewhere in the gray area, so their votes should be weighted.
So a veteran who can't find a job, and goes on food stamps, is a dependent sort of like little child? Someone who gets in a car accident and is paralyzed from the waist down ought to lose their vote, because they can't work and must depend on others?

What about a 58 year old factory worker, whose company closes the factory he works in and moves to Mexico? Should he lose the right to vote because he chooses to collect unemployment in order to make ends meet? Even if he is willing to work, and jobs are not available?

There is no "gray area." Receiving TANF, SNAP or unemployment insurance does not mean you are a lazy slob who refuses to work and will vote for Democrats forevermore. For many people, it's the only way they can keep their families fed.


The sad thing about all this is: If conservatives / Republicans could actually draw voters with their policies, they wouldn't be looking for excuses to disenfranchise citizens.

The premise here is that people will vote in their own self-interest. Why don't conservatives and Republicans offer policies, then, that help the poor -- instead of finding reasons to bar them from voting? It sure sounds like you're just writing off the poor altogether, instead of thinking of them as actual human beings and actual citizens, with genuine political interests.
 
Obviously, by the question you posed, you don't understand the concept of RIGHTS.

I do understand the common misconception. I reject it. It's silly. Now, once again, can you give us a rationality for why an incompetent should be allowed to vote?

Or it you'd rather, a rationality for why you'd allow an unqualified person to drive your child's school bus, or fill your cavities, or neuter your cat, or inspect your food, or bear arms for the nation?
 
I do understand the common misconception. I reject it. It's silly. Now, once again, can you give us a rationality for why an incompetent should be allowed to vote?

Or it you'd rather, a rationality for why you'd allow an unqualified person to drive your child's school bus, or fill your cavities, or neuter your cat, or inspect your food, bear arms for the nation?

You don't understand rights. It isn't silly. It's to make sure there is not taxation without representation. It's to make sure that everyone is treated equally regardless of what YOU might think about them.

You can't test everyone for their competence. It would be expensive, fraud-ridden and not accurate.
 
The concept is utterly ridiculous and would disenfranchise most poor people. Obviously there's a lot of hatred here for the poor. It's quite sad and pathetic.
It's not wise to base the vote on how much stuff one might have. It's equally unwise to hand out stuff, or promise to, contingent on a vote. When our government is given to appealing to shallow interests, we can expect a shallow response. That's the kind of thing that prompts a reaction such as this thread. Neither approach addresses the problem.
 
What about tax breaks? If I'm getting a tax break on the interest payments for my mortgage, is that not a form of "government assistance?"

How about farm subsidies? I'm pretty sure if we disenfranchised every farmer who takes a subsidy, it'll be a lot easier to reduce the costs of the farm bill.

How about public transportation? Millions of Americans rely on public transportation systems that usually run at a loss. Do you lose the right to vote if you don't own a car?

Oh, wait. If you own a car, then you're using highways built, owned and operated by the government. Why isn't that classified as a handout?




The reason why children don't vote is because they have not reached the age of majority, and are not considered mature enough to accept the full range of rights and responsibilities.



So a veteran who can't find a job, and goes on food stamps, is a dependent sort of like little child? Someone who gets in a car accident and is paralyzed from the waist down ought to lose their vote, because they can't work and must depend on others?

What about a 58 year old factory worker, whose company closes the factory he works in and moves to Mexico? Should he lose the right to vote because he chooses to collect unemployment in order to make ends meet? Even if he is willing to work, and jobs are not available?

There is no "gray area." Receiving TANF, SNAP or unemployment insurance does not mean you are a lazy slob who refuses to work and will vote for Democrats forevermore. For many people, it's the only way they can keep their families fed.


The sad thing about all this is: If conservatives / Republicans could actually draw voters with their policies, they wouldn't be looking for excuses to disenfranchise citizens.

The premise here is that people will vote in their own self-interest. Why don't conservatives and Republicans offer policies, then, that help the poor -- instead of finding reasons to bar them from voting? It sure sounds like you're just writing off the poor altogether, instead of thinking of them as actual human beings and actual citizens, with genuine political interests.

Lot of great points here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom