• 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 voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

Should voting be limited to Americans who pay Income tax

  • Total voters
    54
evilHasAName said:
[*]If female you must be married to one man and over the age of 18. -

Dont agree with that

Why would you say that, any working woman has as much right to vote as any working man
Click to expand...

It's important to note that voting is a civil right, not a fundamental right. You do not have the right to vote inherently.

Being employed is not what I had in mined when I said that, so rather or not a woman has a job makes no difference to me.

Women vote differently than men. Typically, unmarried women, in their persuit of economic security, vote to increase the size of government through all kinds of social programs. They use the government as a replacement for a husband, and end up loosing freedoms as a result.

Married women do not tend to increase the size of government because their husband is already providing their economic security. Married women tend to view a large government as a threat to their marital economic security and vote to keep governement small.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Women vote differently than men. Typically, unmarried women, in their persuit of economic security, vote to increase the size of government through all kinds of social programs. They use the government as a replacement for a husband, and end up loosing freedoms as a result.
Click to expand...

Well, as an unmarried woman, I beg to differ with you.:2wave:

The thing about some women that pisses me off is they tend to vote for the "cuter guy".:roll:

There should be a test for all Americans...if they don't know the issues or they just want more hand outs, they shouldn't be voting. Stay HOME!
 
emdash said:
note to self: join the military, get married, get a ccw, stop being a total loser.
Click to expand...

While I may not go as far as Jerry, his idea does have merit.

There is a psychological difference between genders based on their current stations in life.

You're not a loser. :2wave:

UtahBill said:
no problem, as long as libertarians never become the majority, we won't have idiots in the majority...:2razz:
Click to expand...

I make a valid point.

If the majority of voters are compromised of complete imbeciles then why should we be ok with them voting?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
While I may not go as far as Jerry, his idea does have merit.

There is a psychological difference between genders based on their current stations in life.

You're not a loser. :2wave:
Click to expand...

actually I am, but that's not why. ;)

I'm not at all dependent on the government though and haven't ever been so I think I should be able to vote, esp if I serve 2 years! discriminashun!
 
UtahBill said:
will your limerick make me famous? I want to be on Oprah's TV show....:lol:
Click to expand...

it will make you INfamous. luckily oprah has no standards about her guests!

(((;))))

ode to utahbill on display in the basement.
 
Jerry said:
It's important to note that voting is a civil right, not a fundamental right. You do not have the right to vote inherently.

Being employed is not what I had in mined when I said that, so rather or not a woman has a job makes no difference to me.

Women vote differently than men. Typically, unmarried women, in their persuit of economic security, vote to increase the size of government through all kinds of social programs. They use the government as a replacement for a husband, and end up loosing freedoms as a result.

Married women do not tend to increase the size of government because their husband is already providing their economic security. Married women tend to view a large government as a threat to their marital economic security and vote to keep governement small.
Click to expand...

so you don't care so much if voters are intelligent or informed, just if they agree with you. gotcha.
 
Invayne said:
Well, as an unmarried woman, I beg to differ with you.:2wave:

The thing about some women that pisses me off is they tend to vote for the "cuter guy".:roll:

There should be a test for all Americans...if they don't know the issues or they just want more hand outs, they shouldn't be voting. Stay HOME!
Click to expand...

Do you believe you are a 'representative sample' of women per-se?
 
Jerry said:
It's important to note that voting is a civil right, not a fundamental right. You do not have the right to vote inherently.
Click to expand...

The Constitution states that an individual's right to vote shall not be obstructed.

Sounds like a fundamental right to me.
 
Orius said:
The Constitution states that an individual's right to vote shall not be obstructed.

Sounds like a fundamental right to me.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says that the states determine who votes, except they cannot base their restrictions on race, age older than 18, sex, or failure to pay any tax.

Ex felons cannot vote.

Non-citizens cannot vote (you used the word "individual", not me).

If the state denying the vote to homosexuals, there's nothing in the Constituiton to stop them, for example.
 
emdash said:
actually I am, but that's not why. ;)
Click to expand...

I find that hard to believe. :no:

emdash said:
I'm not at all dependent on the government though and haven't ever been so I think I should be able to vote, esp if I serve 2 years! discriminashun!
Click to expand...

Hmm Well I'm personally not to happy about anyone having to serve the government for any sort of time.

I think measuring someones objectiveness and requiring them to carry a firearm would be a good start.
 
Tucker Case said:
What, like Income tax?
Click to expand...

Yep.

Any attempt to restore sanity to the voting process will have to Amend the Constitution.

What the hell, if they're going to do that, the can wipe out the 16th Amendment as well as the Twenty Fourth (?).

We really should start repealing all the mistakes Wilson made, before a hundred years have passed since he left office. Can't undo the dumber things, but the Sixteenth Amendment is a good target.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yep.

Any attempt to restore sanity to the voting process will have to Amend the Constitution.

What the hell, if they're going to do that, the can wipe out the 16th Amendment as well as the Twenty Fourth (?).

We really should start repealing all the mistakes Wilson made, before a hundred years have passed since he left office. Can't undo the dumber things, but the Sixteenth Amendment is a good target.
Click to expand...

So wait... Doesn't wiping out the 16th mean that not allowing those who don't pay income taxes the right to vote mean that we would in fact prevent all people form voting? :confused:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Hmm Well I'm personally not to happy about anyone having to serve the government for any sort of time.

I think measuring someones objectiveness and requiring them to carry a firearm would be a good start.
Click to expand...

I will concede that there have been times when I've wished women couldn't vote. aside from the issue of objectivity I think they(we) can be way too compassionate for their(our) own good, to the point that it gets very pricey. while I know there are women like me and invayne out there who aren't afflicted with this "compassion" phenomenon, I would personally be willing to take one for the team, or rather, throw the game--but if I'm going to give up my suffrage I want to see a lot of men far stupider than me lose theirs too. I suggest an IQ requirement.
 
emdash said:
I will concede that there have been times when I've wished women couldn't vote. aside from the issue of objectivity I think they can be way too compassionate for their own good, to the point that it gets very pricey. while I know there are women like me and invayne out there who aren't afflicted with this "compassion" phenomenon, I would personally be willing to take one for the team, or rather, throw the game--but if I'm going to give up my suffrage I want to see a lot of men far stupider than me lose theirs too. I suggest an IQ requirement.
Click to expand...

I don't think intelligent people should have to take one for the team.
It's not just in my opinion.

Compassion in women is an evolutionary trait, I wouldn't really call it compassion though. It's really more risk aversion and perpetual stability.

If your interested you should check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it details how generally people move up the ladder to self actualization.

Men can be just as irrational. Example I have a guy a work I'm friends with and as much as I hate discussing politics with friends he and I started talking about the election.

He said that he would rather have Hillary because Bill controlled the economy better than bush has.

I wanted to face palm so bad.
 
Orius said:
The Constitution states that an individual's right to vote shall not be obstructed.

Sounds like a fundamental right to me.
Click to expand...

If it were a fundimental right then you would have the right to vote for President.

But you don't, so it's not.
 
Jerry said:
If it were a fundimental right then you would have the right to vote for President.

But you don't, so it's not.
Click to expand...

Voting is a fundamental right whenever an election is held in your region. Once an election occurs, the right to vote cannot be infringed for arbitrary reasons.

The state can decide not to hold a popular election for President, but once it is offered, infringement cannot occur except for under certain circumstances. Such as felony convictions, which can also limit the fundamental right to bear arms.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think intelligent people should have to take one for the team.
Click to expand...

then you can't restrict voting rights by gender or marital status because that would be the inevitable result.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not just in my opinion.

Compassion in women is an evolutionary trait, I wouldn't really call it compassion though. It's really more risk aversion and perpetual stability.
Click to expand...

I don't know, that makes sense when considering how women vote in regards to themselves, but a lot vote policies and systems into place for the benefit of those less fortunate, and never really expect to take advantage of them personally. and you are right, it's men too.

Harry Guerrilla said:
If your interested you should check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it details how generally people move up the ladder to self actualization.

Men can be just as irrational. Example I have a guy a work I'm friends with and as much as I hate discussing politics with friends he and I started talking about the election.

He said that he would rather have Hillary because Bill controlled the economy better than bush has.

I wanted to face palm so bad.
Click to expand...

perhaps an IQ requirement wouldn't nail the desired demographic. there would have to be a personality kind of test showing whether a person was more inclined towards analytical or creative thought patterns. I fear it is far too elusive a problem, and we'll just have to put up with it.
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
The Constitution states that an individual's right to vote shall not be obstructed.
Click to expand...
It does? Where?

Sounds like a fundamental right to me.
Click to expand...
So then you'd also argue that the right to arms is a fundamental right as well - yes?
 
emdash said:
then you can't restrict voting rights by gender or marital status because that would be the inevitable result.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with restricting it just based on gender or marital status.

I was just saying that there is empirical data that shows how people view government responsibilities differently nad how in my opinion they are wrong.

emdash said:
I don't know, that makes sense when considering how women vote in regards to themselves, but a lot vote policies and systems into place for the benefit of those less fortunate, and never really expect to take advantage of them personally. and you are right, it's men too.
Click to expand...

What it really boils down to is that people should vote based on logical conclusions and not on emotional rhetoric.

If that was the required test to meet the standard to vote, invariably more women would most likely be left out of voting.

emdash said:
perhaps an IQ requirement wouldn't nail the desired demographic. there would have to be a personality kind of test showing whether a person was more inclined towards analytical or creative thought patterns. I fear it is far too elusive a problem, and we'll just have to put up with it.
Click to expand...

A personality test would be a great start.

The ancient Greeks had a good handle on the problem and understood it well.

The stoic philosophy should be used in evaluating candidates and laws but that is asking way to much of most people who don't care.

Stoicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't agree with restricting it just based on gender or marital status.

I was just saying that there is empirical data that shows how people view government responsibilities differently nad how in my opinion they are wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with jerry that anyone who wants bigger gov't shouldn't be voting, although I think they're wrong. banning people from the polls because they don't agree with jerry might be good for the country in the short run, but what about when jerry gets old and alzheimer's/dementia come into play?

Harry Guerrilla said:
What it really boils down to is that people should vote based on logical conclusions and not on emotional rhetoric.

If that was the required test to meet the standard to vote, invariably more women would most likely be left out of voting.

A personality test would be a great start.

The ancient Greeks had a good handle on the problem and understood it well.

The stoic philosophy should be used in evaluating candidates and laws but that is asking way to much of most people who don't care.

Stoicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that entire section. (plus when I was in school in the midwest they told me I was too stoic to drink pop, I had to drink soda. they never got my jokes either. it is comforting to think that imposed stoicism would keep them from voting while I would run free.)
 
emdash said:
so you don't care so much if voters are intelligent or informed, just if they agree with you. gotcha.
Click to expand...

It's exactly this sort of feminine emotional lunacy which the American public needs to be protected against by requiring women to be married to vote.

A woman with reasonable financial security is generally of a sound mined.

A woman who is at financial risk or danger is generally over stressed and typically makes critical decisions on emotional impulse without thinking things through objectively.

This is why so many cultures throughout history have the men run the businesses.

It makes perfect sense and is completely consistent that women and de-maculated men would typically cry sexism here, as sich a declaration is not based on empirical fact but emotional impulse.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
It's exactly this sort of feminine emotional lunacy which the American public needs to be protected against by requiring women to be married to vote.

A woman with reasonable financial security is generally of a sound mined.

A woman who is at financial risk or danger is generally over stressed and typically makes critical decisions on emotional impulse without thinking things through objectively.

This is why so many cultures throughout history have the men run the businesses.

It makes perfect sense and is completely consistent that women and de-maculated men would typically cry sexism here, as sic a declaration is not based on imperial fact but emotional impulse.
Click to expand...

I didn't cry sexism. I cried...egocentrism?

regardless of sex, you only want smallest-government-possible proponents to vote because you think (or know) that small government is ideal. all of your criteria are centered around this.

it's cute that you would automatically assume I'm crying sexism because I'm female. I think you instinctively cry "feminine emotional lunacy" to the point that it's not completely rational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom