• 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!

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

Should be on welfare be allowed to vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 99 82.5%
  • No

    Votes: 15 12.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 5.8%
  • Welcome To Costco I Love You

    Votes: 11 9.2%

  • Total voters
    120
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?

I do not really think the argument against their voting very strong. On the other hand, it could be said that excluding them would rob democracy of its legitimacy as an optimizing societal tool.
 
In other words, should any destitute tramp be allowed to just vote for a living instead of working for one?
 
I do not really think the argument against their voting very strong. On the other hand, it could be said that excluding them would rob democracy of its legitimacy as an optimizing societal tool.

How is democracy legitimate? 50.01% of the people get to rob the 49.99% of the rights and wealth.
 
How is democracy legitimate? 50.01% of the people get to rob the 49.99% of the rights and wealth.

Actually legitimacy shouldn't usually be a question of slight majorities.
 
Yes. If we only allowed the rich to vote we would have what we damn near already have. A system for the rich made by the rich to help the rich. Its pretty much there already so maybe taking away our right to vote because we are poor/on welfare we will resort to action instead of talking.
 
Madison didn't foresee the bulk of government funding coming from other than property taxes. Point dismissed.

sorry no, there premise his that if people have nothing at stake, then they will use their vote, by means of injustice to take from others.

which is why voting is a privilege and not a right.
 
And if everyone can't vote, then those with property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to prevent the acquirement of property by those that don't.

why would the average citizen, who would say own a 1/3 acre want to prevent the people with no vote, to ability to acquire property...for what reason?
 
By placing power in those who hold the wealth of nations, all these wealthy men need to do in the 21st century is push legislation via deep pockets to basically rid power of any unified groups that go against their agenda (which is more wealth and power in their very few hands). And, that is exactly the system we have today.
 
why would the average citizen, who would say own a 1/3 acre want to prevent the people with no vote, to ability to acquire property...for what reason?

To preserve and increase their own wealth.
 
In other words, should any destitute tramp be allowed to just vote for a living instead of working for one?

Who gets to designate who is or is not a tramp? You?
Is there life less valuable than yours?
How many classes / social levels would you have?
 
really... how not allowing another to have property increase my wealth?....

Because if you have that property instead, it can be used as a means to build wealth.
 
you are supposing that property is play between those that don't have any and those that do...and that is not the case.

What do you mean by 'is play'?
 
What do you mean by 'is play'?

your statement eludes to that two people 1 with a vote, can use his vote to prevent the 1 without a vote from owning property both would be vying over.

right to property.... is a natural right...votes cannot take it away from those with no property [land].
 
I could give less than two ****s what perspective you claim to offer.

If you continue to argue off of absolutely idiotic grounds that people like my brother or any other person who is impoverished doesn't deserve to vote, because of your inappropriate and baseless house metaphor, you deserve every ad hominem you get.

I too like complex subjects, but I approach it with some semblance of intelligence, self-awareness, consistency, and moral basis. The only thing you have said thus far is "I am talking about something different." You aren't. You're just refusing to accept the consequences of your ideas. Again and again that's all you have done.

Get off that decrepit high horse of yours and sniff the real world for Christ's sake and stop insulting our intelligence.

Have a nice day Fiddly. I won't be responding to you further.
 
To preserve and increase their own wealth.

But the fact is, the more prosperous and productive others are, the more opportunity there is to increase their own wealth. You don't prosper by buying and selling property when nobody can afford to participate in the process.
 
sorry no, there premise his that if people have nothing at stake, then they will use their vote, by means of injustice to take from others.

which is why voting is a privilege and not a right.
A statement used by those who wish to contract, minimize, voting rights. It is pure standing on ones head POV of the Constitution (the Constitution is a document of preserving rights, not out and out proclamation of rights. The right to vote is mentioned 14 times, not once is it described as a "privilege".).
 
In other words, should any destitute tramp be allowed to just vote for a living instead of working for one?

Well I would phrase it a bit more charitably than that, but this does get to the heart of it as I interpret the question posed in the OP.

Again, there is something deeply wrong with Citizen A given power to demand that Citizen B hand over property to Citizen A for no other reason than Citizen A needs or wants it. There is something deeply wrong with a politician confiscating property from Citizen B and giving that property to Citizen A for no better reason than he wants Citizen A's vote.

Again THAT is the elephant in the room that few wish to acknowledge or even think about. We--liberals, conservatives, libertarians--are so conditioned to believe that the vote is sacrosanct that it is uncomfortable to even acknowledge a possibility that the vote can be misused.
 
But the fact is, the more prosperous and productive others are, the more opportunity there is to increase their own wealth. You don't prosper by buying and selling property when nobody can afford to participate in the process.

But if only a small minority gets to vote, what prevents them from changing the Constitution to reenact slavery or indentured servitude, allowing those with the wealth and power to live off the labor of others, only taking care of their very basic needs? You limit voting one way where it is determined by financial assets or income, then you open the door to fix it so only certain majorities can vote, and do so in whatever way you want.
 
A statement used by those who wish to contract, minimize, voting rights. It is pure standing on ones head POV of the Constitution (the Constitution is a document of preserving rights, not out and out proclamation of rights. The right to vote is mentioned 14 times, not once is it described as a "privilege".).

Not once is it a granted to all people or treated as anything other than a privilege either.
 
But the fact is, the more prosperous and productive others are, the more opportunity there is to increase their own wealth. You don't prosper by buying and selling property when nobody can afford to participate in the process.

You missed it, that is the view shared by Nilly. It is "ernst" you should posting this to. He is questioning the validity of having those without real property a right to vote.
 
Have a nice day Fiddly. I won't be responding to you further.

Once Fiddy starts talking about the disabled it's usually time to walk away.
 
Not once is it a granted to all people
Straw, I never said it was. Try reading what I posted more carefully.

or treated as anything other than a privilege either.
Again, a baseless claim since, again, "privilege" is never once mentioned in the Constitution in relation to individual voting rights.
 
A statement used by those who wish to contract, minimize, voting rights. It is pure standing on ones head POV of the Constitution (the Constitution is a document of preserving rights, not out and out proclamation of rights. The right to vote is mentioned 14 times, not once is it described as a "privilege".).

sorry you are wrong....



Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.


rights do not have Qualifications requisite.

rights require no action from government for a right to be exercised,...but privileges do require an action.......voting cannot be accomplished without government action.

the constitution states voting cannot be denied for certain reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom