Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?[W:504]

This whole poll is premised on the notion that those on welfare shouldn't be able to vote because poor people just vote themselves more benefits from the government. The problem with that notion is that the poor always have the worst turnout rates. They don't vote themselves more benefits because that would require them to actually vote which they do less than any other demographic:



Voter Turnout By Income, 2008 US Presidential Election | Demos

SouthernDemocrat said:

This whole poll is premised on the notion that those on welfare shouldn't be able to vote because poor people just vote themselves more benefits from the government. The problem with that notion is that the poor always have the worst turnout rates. They don't vote themselves more benefits because that would require them to actually vote which they do less than any other demographic:

Voter Turnout By Income, 2008 US Presidential Election | Demos

Click to expand...

Umm, these are percentages, not raw numbers. We can't say that a lower percentage of poor people vote, therefore not as many poor as rich people vote, because there are far more poor people than rich people.

phattonez said:

Ideally no one would vote, but at least with a restricted vote you don't have the idea that the actions of government have popular support, and so government is much more limited.

Click to expand...

OK- What form of Govt do you refer or prefer.
Govts, those in power never lessen or relinquish the powers they have.
What form of Govt. Possibly the ancient Roman version of Dictator?

SouthernDemocrat said:

This whole poll is premised on the notion that those on welfare shouldn't be able to vote because poor people just vote themselves more benefits from the government.

Click to expand...

Lets cut out all the politeness and niceties. The whole premise of the poll is that people on welfare DO NOT vote for the people who writer of the OP wants elected and they are preventing the sort of right wing extremist revolution he desires. Thus the way to change that is to get rid of the right to vote for the people who vote against his interests.

phattonez said:

Umm, these are percentages, not raw numbers. We can't say that a lower percentage of poor people vote, therefore not as many poor as rich people vote, because there are far more poor people than rich people.

Click to expand...

The point still stands. If the premise is that poor people just go to the polls to vote themselves more handouts from rich people, then why do only 41% of them manage to vote? Better than 60% of the middle class votes and they are by far the largest demographic.

JANFU said:

OK- What form of Govt do you refer or prefer.
Govts, those in power never lessen or relinquish the powers they have.
What form of Govt. Possibly the ancient Roman version of Dictator?

Click to expand...

If we must have government (and I'm not convinced that we do), then we would be far better served with a monarchy than a democracy. As a caveat, I must add that these kingdoms should be as small as possible. The king of the entire United States would likely be a tyrant.

SouthernDemocrat said:

The point still stands. If the premise is that poor people just go to the polls to vote themselves more handouts from rich people, then why do only 41% of them manage to vote? Better than 60% of the middle class votes and they are by far the largest demographic.

Click to expand...

The point doesn't stand. If you have 10x as many people in one group, and only 50% of that group shows up, then that group is dominating and it's not even close.

phattonez said:

The point doesn't stand. If you have 10x as many people in one group, and only 50% of that group shows up, then that group is dominating and it's not even close.

Click to expand...

We don't have 10x as many people earning under 20k a year as we do earning over 75k a year. Do the math, poor people hardly have any electoral influence if just 40% of them bother to vote:



We don't have a safety-net in this country because poor people voted themselves one, we have a safety-net in this country because even most wealthy people think we should have one.

phattonez said:

And the vast majority of the public have shown themselves irresponsible when it comes to most issue. Why else do we run such large deficits that we can never pay back? It's because politicians are trying to win votes and have absolutely no regard for the long term health of the people they represent.

Click to expand...

If it could be proven that only those voters who don't pay federal income taxes orno state property taxes voted for those politicians who appropriated funds that increased the deficit, I think most of us would agree either it's time to revoke or restrict their voting rights. But since you and I both know voting is not a limited nor exclusive participatory action within the political process I'd say this is a fantasy at best and a foolhardy notion at worse.

Now, I would agree with you that there are some politicians who honestly believe that "debt is good" and will continue to vote on appropriations bills with no regard for how such spending will play out for future budgets, you can't blame to voters for that.

phattonez said:

If people did not vote for the people who voted for that act, then they might be a little more outrage about this spying being forced on them without their consent.

Click to expand...

Again you speak as if the politicians who brought the Patriot Act forward were voted into office exclusively by a select group of voters, voters who presumably knew in advance that this was the kind of legislation they expected/desired to come out of Congress. I could somewhat understand your perspective if we were discussing say...Obamacare...during the 2012 presidential election where Republicans pledged to repeal that law and the voters voted nearly in lock-step for Republican candidates based primarily on this campaign promise, but that's not always the case. It's rare to see voters tow the party line this way for or against a measure at the Congressional level. For singular campaigns, i.e., mayor, Governor, President, it's a completely different story. But not when it comes to a body of elected officials.

SouthernDemocrat said:

We don't have 10x as many people earning under 20k a year as we do earning over 75k a year. Do the math, poor people hardly have any electoral influence if just 40% of them bother to vote:

We don't have a safety-net in this country because poor people voted themselves one, we have a safety-net in this country because even most wealthy people think we should have one.

Click to expand...

No, but by the look of it we have about 3x as many people earning less than 75k per year than more than 75k. That tells me that unless this group is 3x less likely to vote than other groups, then they're going to decide elections.

Objective Voice said:

If it could be proven that only those voters who don't pay federal income taxes orno state property taxes voted for those politicians who appropriated funds that increased the deficit, I think most of us would agree either it's time to revoke or restrict their voting rights. But since you and I both know voting is not a limited nor exclusive participatory action within the political process I'd say this is a fantasy at best and a foolhardy notion at worse.

Now, I would agree with you that there are some politicians who honestly believe that "debt is good" and will continue to vote on appropriations bills with no regard for how such spending will play out for future budgets, you can't blame to voters for that.

Click to expand...

Sure I can, because politicians make these promises explicitly because they know it will win them votes.

You have to realize that my point is this thread is to critique democracy more than to say that the poor exclusively should not vote.

Objective Voice said:

Again you speak as if the politicians who brought the Patriot Act forward were voted into office exclusively by a select group of voters, voters who presumably knew in advance that this was the kind of legislation they expected/desired to come out of Congress. I could somewhat understand your perspective if we were discussing say...Obamacare...during the 2012 presidential election where Republicans pledged to repeal that law and the voters voted nearly in lock-step for Republican candidates based primarily on this campaign promise, but that's not always the case. It's rare to see voters tow the party line this way for or against a measure at the Congressional level. For singular campaigns, i.e., mayor, Governor, President, it's a completely different story. But not when it comes to a body of elected officials.

Click to expand...

Polls that I've seen show majority support for the Patriot Act, or at most just minor changes. And people are okay with this because they think that with democracy that the government represents them. You tell me how you think something like the Patriot Act would go over when only rich landowners can vote.

AlbqOwl said:

And I think you should re-read what I wrote again and again until you can see what is actually there and is actually said. And what is actually there is not a suggestion that people in a financial bind should lose their rights.

Click to expand...

I read your post very thoroughly (post #183) and what you essentially said was:

How dare these voters who pay no federal income tax have a say not only in whether or not said tax should be increased, but how those tax dollars should be spent when they haven't paid a dime toward the revenue stream.

How dare these voters who pay no state property tax have a say not only in whether or not said property tax should be increased, but how those tax dollars should be spent when they haven't paid a dime toward the revenue stream.

How dare these voters be allowed to vote for those politicians who do nothing except vote to redistribute wealth by taking from the rich and giving my money to the poor.

Click to expand...

I heard you loud and clear. Problem is since we live in a "representative republic" where the majority essentially wins yet everyone is "equally represented and equally share in the burden to promote the general welfare of the nation", it's impossible to restrict votes at the federal level to count for certain things like tax increases or how funds will be used once appropriated and against other measures that may or may not require congressional appropriations.

Although some issues are placed on the ballot at the state and local levels to ensure fair voter representation (because as we well know there should be no taxation without representation), you'd never be able to restrict the vote to only those individuals who pay property taxes for home ownership. Why? Because even those individuals who rent property as their place of residence pay indirectly towards the property tax of the landlord/home owner.

So, again I say perhaps you really should sit down and rethink your position here.

Objective Voice said:

I read your post very thoroughly (post #183) and what you essentially said was:



I heard you loud and clear. Problem is since we live in a "representative republic" where the majority essentially wins yet everyone is "equally represented and equally share in the burden to promote the general welfare of the nation", it's impossible to restrict votes at the federal level to count for certain things like tax increases or how funds will be used once appropriated and against other measures that may or may not require congressional appropriations.

Although some issues are placed on the ballot at the state and local levels to ensure fair voter representation (because as we well know there should be no taxation without representation), you'd never be able to restrict the vote to only those individuals who pay property taxes for home ownership. Why? Because even those individuals who rent property as their place of residence pay indirectly towards the property tax of the landlord/home owner.

So, again I say perhaps you really should sit down and rethink your position here.

Click to expand...

And I think a chill pill might be in order for some. What you interpreted as what I said and what I actually said are very different. But do have a nice day.

phattonez said:

No, but by the look of it we have about 3x as many people earning less than 75k per year than more than 75k. That tells me that unless this group is 3x less likely to vote than other groups, then they're going to decide elections.

Click to expand...

No, you don't have 3 times as many earning under 75k a year as you do ver 75k a year. Median income is 51k a year. Roughly 61% of voting households are under 75k a year, but many of those households pay federal income taxes. Moreover, they earn far too much to qualify for any means tested benefits. To qualify for welfare, medicaid, hud and so on you need to be at or near the poverty. Those that actually qualify for those means tested benefits are a small percentage of the electorate and they vote in small numbers. So your premise is flawed you should just accept reality.

SouthernDemocrat said:

No, you don't have 3 times as many earning under 75k a year as you do ver 75k a year. Median income is 51k a year. Roughly 61% of voting households are under 75k a year, but many of those households pay federal income taxes. Moreover, they earn far too much to qualify for any means tested benefits. To qualify for welfare, medicaid, hud and so on you need to be at or near the poverty. Those that actually qualify for those means tested benefits are a small percentage of the electorate and they vote in small numbers. So your premise is flawed you should just accept reality.

Click to expand...

I think that isn't so much an issue though as is the fact that more than 49% of American households were receiving some sort of direct government benefit in 2012--Mitt Romney actually underestimated a bit with his 47%--and that number has no doubt increased since then especially as more government subsidies kick in for Obamacare. That is our reality. And all any politician has to do to scare people into not voting for somebody is to convince them that his/her opponent will take away those benefits. Even people who know the benefits are not good for the country overall are reluctant to be the patsy who gives up his benefit when everybody else gets to keep theirs.

It becomes a vicious circle of inadequacy vs dependency, but it keep a huge segment of the population voting for those benefits.


Who receives government benefits, in six charts - The Washington Post

phattonez said:

You tell me how you think something like the Patriot Act would go over when only rich landowners can vote.

Click to expand...

Pretty well, actually. We have to remember that they instituted the Alien and Sedition Acts with such a limited political class. Both the Alien and Sedition Acts as well as the Patriot Act are a defense of the entrenched and powerful structures of the country against foreign and impoverished entities out there perceived to create havoc and violence unsupporting of the nation-state. Now, you may say that while they indeed passed, there was fervent opposition by non-Federalist Party members. However that is to be granted, they had neither the numbers to immediately block such proposals, nor did they have the support of the more entrenched populace. The Federalist Party was mostly backed by your well-off merchant/investment class, while the Democratic-Republicans were lauded by yeoman farmers, poorer persons, and immigrants. In an American Republic where the wealthy landowners were the true gatekeepers of politics, the more well-off you were and the more entrenched in the region's history you were, the more likely you were to be a Federalist and more likely to support such restrictions on liberty. Aside from a concerned number of Democratic-Republicans who were well-off, their base of support was largely to be found in speaking for the yeoman farmers and the impoverished masses. After all, much of the backbone of the early Party divide centered on how you felt about the U.S. Constitution. A lot of the Democratic-Republican base were appalled by the lack of a Bill of Rights, whereas much of the Federalist-Party's base were quite comfortable without one.

AlbqOwl said:

I think that isn't so much an issue though as is the fact that more than 49% of American households were receiving some sort of direct government benefit in 2012--Mitt Romney actually underestimated a bit with his 47%--and that number has no doubt increased since then especially as more government subsidies kick in for Obamacare. That is our reality. And all any politician has to do to scare people into not voting for somebody is to convince them that his/her opponent will take away those benefits. Even people who know the benefits are not good for the country overall are reluctant to be the patsy who gives up his benefit when everybody else gets to keep theirs.

It becomes a vicious circle of inadequacy vs dependency, but it keep a huge segment of the population voting for those benefits.

View attachment 67183527
Who receives government benefits, in six charts - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

The old, "sure we need to make cuts, but not to what I receive" mindset. Guess I'm just as guilty of that as anyone. But then, what I get is military retirement and disabled veterans benefits. Everything else should be cut out totally before either of those ever get touched. Unearned benefits such as SNAP, Welfare, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc should be cut to zero before retirements and disability, especially service related, take any kind of cut, including stopping cost of living raises.

DVSentinel said:

The old, "sure we need to make cuts, but not to what I receive" mindset. Guess I'm just as guilty of that as anyone. But then, what I get is military retirement and disabled veterans benefits. Everything else should be cut out totally before either of those ever get touched. Unearned benefits such as SNAP, Welfare, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc should be cut to zero before retirements and disability, especially service related, take any kind of cut, including stopping cost of living raises.

Click to expand...

And yet there are people who are actually deserving of a hand up, most especially those who have spent their lives being a benefit to society and who, for whatever reason, fall on hard times. And certainly those who stepped up to risk everything in the service of their country in the military are deserving of whatever they were promised when they signed up. But neither should we have a government that goes to the highest bidder of what he or she promises in freebies and benefits.

And that is the real elephant in the room with this thread topic--obviously one that most or all of the leftwingers and even a lot of conservatives find too politically incorrect and uncomfortable to acknowledge.

DVSentinel said:

The old, "sure we need to make cuts, but not to what I receive" mindset. Guess I'm just as guilty of that as anyone. But then, what I get is military retirement and disabled veterans benefits. Everything else should be cut out totally before either of those ever get touched. Unearned benefits such as SNAP, Welfare, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc should be cut to zero before retirements and disability, especially service related, take any kind of cut, including stopping cost of living raises.

Click to expand...

What do yu count as unearned? If I get into an accident not my fault that results in me being unable to work after paying into federal taxes for years (and state taxes my whole life) I think it's fair to get some benefits then

Clearly any citizen should have the right to vote. The alternative is ideologically complicated and hard to justify.

Capital ownership is only part of why people vote. Others do it for moral, social and ideological reasons. You can vote for whoever you want, for any reason you want.

If we made voting about capital ownernship then at this point less than 10% of America would be able to vote. And clearly the elections are all rigged by corporate lobbying anyway. So we don't need to formalize economic levels to voting, they're already happening.

What I find disturbing is the typical way people receiving government help are characterized. "Welfare" is a term ignorant people use. It's called government assistance and there are hundreds of programs. Does a permanently disabled person have any less voice in the polity than a veteran? Someone on EI? Someone who just lost everything to hospital bills?

Once you start separating people from the flock, you get into dangerous 'othering' territory. That kind of divisive thinking must be snipped before it spreads. It's a cancerous plague on democracy and should be called out for what it is... a blight to be collectively quashed.

Northern Light said:

Clearly any citizen should have the right to vote. The alternative is ideologically complicated and hard to justify.

Capital ownership is only part of why people vote. Others do it for moral, social and ideological reasons. You can vote for whoever you want, for any reason you want.

If we made voting about capital ownernship then at this point less than 10% of America would be able to vote. And clearly the elections are all rigged by corporate lobbying anyway. So we don't need to formalize economic levels to voting, they're already happening.

What I find disturbing is the typical way people receiving government help are characterized. "Welfare" is an term ignorant people use. Its called government assistance and there are hundreds of programs. Does a permanently disabled person have any less voice in the polity than a veteran? Someone on EI? Someone who just lost everything to hospital bills?

Once you start separating people from the flock, you get into dangerous 'bothering' territory. That kind of divisive thinking just be snipped before it begins. It's a cancerous plague on democracy and should be called out for what it is... a blight to be collectively quashed.

Click to expand...

I'd basically agree with you, but We don't allow all citizens to vote. We disallow that for sections of the intellectually disabled as well as felons. I think all non-criminal adults should be allowed to vote.

If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to vote.

chloerenee97 said:

If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to vote.

Click to expand...

To which taxes do you refer to? Because I'd like to tell my 100% service connected disabled husband (who served for 20 years) that he shouldn't be able to vote because somebody on the internet says so.

Certain taxes are waived when you reach a certain disability percentage, mainly 100% service connected. That means that the military jacked you up so bad that they are willing to pay you a lot of money for the rest of your life, just because.

Call it punitive damages, if you'd like.

Either way, I'm sure that he'd rather pay property tax, and ad velorum tax, and NOT be disabled as a result of his military career.