User Panel
[#1]
|
|
[#3]
Quoted:
$200 tax stamp, poll tax property owner pay federal income taxes (net) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck no, it should be hard as fuck to vote. FAR too many shitbags just want to vote themselves free shit. $200 tax stamp, poll tax property owner pay federal income taxes (net) This right here. Ban any freeloader from voting. Want to vote you gotta have skin in the game, if you are on the dole then no voting for you. |
|
[#4]
|
|
[#6]
|
|
[#8]
Quoted:
Citizen, land owning, age of 25+ with no criminal record. Must not have received any welfare within the past 10 years. ID and background check required st the polling booth. Any attempts at voting without meeting the above is a minimum of 20 years in prison. View Quote Probably not even remotely realistic in this entitled society, but I don't disagree with anything above. |
|
[#9]
Quoted:
You just cut 200 million or more of the population out of voting. i would like to subscribe to your news letter. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Citizen, land owning, age of 25+ with no criminal record. Must not have received any welfare within the past 10 years. ID and background check required st the polling booth. Any attempts at voting without meeting the above is a minimum of 20 years in prison. You just cut 200 million or more of the population out of voting. i would like to subscribe to your news letter. Where is the like button... |
|
[#10]
|
|
[#11]
Quoted:
What stops Soros from buy an acre in every state and issuing an ownership share to every resident? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Land ownership and a basic exam to prove literacy and understanding of government functions. What stops Soros from buy an acre in every state and issuing an ownership share to every resident? |
|
[#13]
Quoted: If we're going to put additional conditions on the right to vote, the most rational one would be an educational requirement: a 4-year college degree or equivalent. But in general, I'm in favor of as wide a franchise as possible. It gives people a sense of participation, and a stake in what's going on. In a democracy, the extremists and the ignorant ones tend to cancel each other out. View Quote |
|
[#14]
Disagree.
Be a US citizen Be 18+ Have a photo ID Not be on govt assistance Not be a felon Pass a very simple test on civics (one time only) Yes I know, poll tax. |
|
[#15]
The only requirements to vote in the USA should be... View Quote Military service! Takes care of the ID problem anyways. |
|
[#16]
Quoted:
Must pay taxes View Quote This. Must pay taxes net of any .gov assistance received, including Social Security. If you don't have current skin in the game, you don't get to vote. Just because I used to own stock in AT&T doesn't mean I can vote at their stockholders meeting when I no longer own that stock This rule would forever end all progressive social justice hogwash. |
|
[#17]
|
|
[#19]
Quoted:
And not be on government assistance. View Quote I'm for this. If you are able bodied and below mandatory retirement age, and accept taxpayer money, you should forfeit your voting rights for the duration. It's a voluntary process, no one forces you to petition for and receive welfare. "Welfare" should be a PITA, otherwise what's the incentive to get off it? Buying votes with freebies shouldn't be an option. |
|
[#22]
|
|
[#23]
|
|
[#24]
|
|
[#25]
|
|
[#27]
|
|
[#28]
Wow, so much fail, so much low information Trump supporters.
|
|
[#30]
What is all this bollocks about owning land or property? Why isn't 'taxpayer' enough?
|
|
[#31]
|
|
[#33]
Quoted:
What is all this bollocks about owning land or property? Why isn't 'taxpayer' enough? View Quote That eliminates nearly half of all Americans, but it doesn't, in the current system. Don't call yourself a taxpayer when your earned income credit and deductions net you a free paycheck every year. |
|
[#34]
|
|
[#35]
Quoted:
Citizen, land owning, age of 25+ with no criminal record. Must not have received any welfare within the past 10 years. ID and background check required st the polling booth. Any attempts at voting without meeting the above is a minimum of 20 years in prison. View Quote And male.... |
|
[#37]
Quoted:
Citizen, land owning, age of 25+ with no criminal record. Must not have received any welfare within the past 10 years. ID and background check required st the polling booth. Any attempts at voting without meeting the above is a minimum of 20 years in prison. View Quote I mostly like this. Only I would throw in anyone who owns and files taxes on a business based in the US. 1 vote per. |
|
[#38]
|
|
[#39]
Disagree. If you receive more in government aid then you paid in taxes, then no vote. I'd like to see an IQ test as well, but that's even more of a pipe dream than my first wish.
|
|
[#40]
Some sort of basic literacy test would be fine, administered prior to the election. View Quote Literacy tests were held to be unconstitutional, because they were racially applied. So were poll taxes. |
|
[#41]
Quoted:
Literacy tests were held to be unconstitutional, because they were racially applied. So were poll taxes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Some sort of basic literacy test would be fine, administered prior to the election. Literacy tests were held to be unconstitutional, because they were racially applied. So were poll taxes. How about an accredited 4 year college degree? Advanced degree you can vote thrice. But seriously. This thread is full of some weapons grade stupid. One person. One vote. Age of majority. Not in prison. Voting day a national holiday. You most certainly can craft a conservative winning message to a majority of people in this country. If you can't it's your messengers fault. |
|
[#43]
Quoted:
Literacy tests were held to be unconstitutional, because they were racially applied. So were poll taxes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Some sort of basic literacy test would be fine, administered prior to the election. Literacy tests were held to be unconstitutional, because they were racially applied. So were poll taxes. And they got it wrong. |
|
[#44]
Disagree.
Wards cannot be enfranchised. You are trying to get around the issue of wards with "of legal age", as children are wards of their parents. There are some teenagers, and probably even younger, who are as smart and wise as many adults, but they are denied the franchise because they are not independent for their needs and decisions. What "of legal age" tried to test is exactly that - whether someone is independent, i.e., not under undue influence of another. Granting a child a vote would in essence allow many parents to have (or at least strongly influence) more than 1 vote. However there are many reasons why someone can be a ward, and no ward can have an independent vote or someone else is being granted multiple votes whether because the citizen is under legal age, incarcerated, in a sanitarium, or on government assistance within the election cycle. No wards. |
|
[#45]
|
|
[#46]
|
|
[#47]
This thread is full of so much derp. For example, the land ownership requirement sounds like some people are nostalgic for feudalism.
Male, veteran, property owner not receiving any sort of .gov check, business, contract or subsidy. View Quote So, you would take the vote away from all the oldsters collecting Social Security, government pensions, or veterans' benefits? And business owners happening to have contracts with the government? You do realize that most of those people tend to be conservative? Who exactly would be left to vote? |
|
[#48]
The way I see it, the problem with voter qualifications is that they are almost always inherently designed to disenfranchise those who you think shouldn't be able to vote, because you feel they will vote for what you don't want.
If you live in this country, nearly every law on the books applies to you. They don't apply to property owners, veterans, 25+ year olds, etc, anymore than they apply to you. It would therefore make sense that you would be able to contribute your voice (through your vote) towards the law making process. Disenfranchisement seeks to disengage the disqualified voters from the lawmaking process, yet the laws they are under are still applied to them. That is my fundamental disagreement for the multitude of voter qualifications often brought up. If the law applies to everyone equally, there is no reason an otherwise outright disqualified individual should not be able to vote. |
|
[#49]
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.