Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/30/2004 1:51:36 PM EDT
...how about a poll tax?

I've lost all faith in the American voter.....he's clearly stupid, lazy, and easily swayed by the media, otherwise Bush and Skerry wouldn't be tied at this point. So, what about a $50 tax to vote?
Your average lazy, uninformed voter isn't gonna pay that to vote.....only the people that really care enough to learn what the issues are will.

I don't CARE if only 0.5% of the country votes.....quality of votes is more important than quantity.....

AoD
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 1:52:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AoD:
...how about a poll tax?

I've lost all faith in the American voter.....he's clearly stupid, lazy, and easily swayed by the media, otherwise Bush and Skerry wouldn't be tied at this point. So, what about a $50 tax to vote?
Your average lazy, uninformed voter isn't gonna pay that to vote.....only the people that really care enough to learn what the issues are will.

I don't CARE if only 0.5% of the country votes.....quality of votes is more important than quantity.....

AoD



That was tried before.  It's illegal.

Link Posted: 10/30/2004 1:53:37 PM EDT
What about limiting voting to land owners.  Or requiring voters to attend a civics class - or better yet, pass an IQ test.  Those with IQ's less that 100 cannot vote.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 1:53:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AoD:
...how about a poll tax?

I've lost all faith in the American voter.....he's clearly stupid, lazy, and easily swayed by the media, otherwise Bush and Skerry wouldn't be tied at this point. So, what about a $50 tax to vote?
Your average lazy, uninformed voter isn't gonna pay that to vote.....only the people that really care enough to learn what the issues are will.

I don't CARE if only 0.5% of the country votes.....quality of votes is more important than quantity.....

AoD



Link Posted: 10/30/2004 1:54:40 PM EDT
I prefer Heinlein's method - only those who've already served the nation (in ANY capacity) get a say in its Leadership and Direction.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 1:56:00 PM EDT
What difference does it make, really?

The Federal Gov't is going to continue to violate the US Constitution until the SCOTUS rules the Federal Gov't unconstitutional and turns the title and keys over to the chairman of the JCOS.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 1:57:35 PM EDT
You do have a point about quality vs quantity.


BTW, the voters (esp. all the stupid ones) are doing fine and dandy with what is now our strict democracy - and we're reaping all the 'fine' rewards for doind so.

It's the REPUBLIC that most people are truly too stupid to trust with, and is almost completely gone. We're supposed to be a constitutional republic, do you remember?
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 1:57:53 PM EDT
Clearly only 0.5% are qualified to vote, judging by the number of Bush supporters here
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 1:59:44 PM EDT
Well, the best argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter...  (Good ol' Winston)


However, this plan is just not cool, aside from being illegal.   And just IMAGINE the libs coming out in force about how blacks are all poor and this is targetting blacks, blah blah blah, liberal douche-baggery, blah blah blah.

YMMV


- BG
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:00:39 PM EDT


I don't live in a Democracy.  I live in a Republic.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:15:02 PM EDT
The republic died nearly a century ago, when we allowed the state the power to tax incomes and to set interest rates by providing an unlimited supply of credit at that rate.

Lending money nobody earned at interest is a pretty good racket, especially now that the entire money supply is made up of such credit.

That kind of control over the economy, essentially unlimited spending power, can only result in the state consuming a greater and greater percentage of the productive capacity of the society as long as it exists. That has been the result regardless of which party is in power.

Bush and Kerrys budgets both want federal spending equivelent to roughly 25% of GDP.

Democracy speeds the process along because the masses will vote for whoever promises them the largest share of the proceeds of this extortion and fraud.

There are popular arguements that taxing the poor will make them more responsible about voting for big spenders, and there are people who think limiting voting to people who meet some sort of criteria would solve the problem, it won't.

The welfare state will only die when it's source of funding is cut, or it collapses under its own weight.

Free market interest rates are the only solution.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:21:00 PM EDT
Do not allow those who get government handouts to vote, those who pay taxes can only vote.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:23:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Do not allow those who get government handouts to vote, those who pay taxes can only vote.



No representation with out taxation!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:23:21 PM EDT
+1 on service for franchise.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:28:28 PM EDT
A poll tax?
Talk about a lead baloon!

Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:34:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:

Originally Posted By AoD:
...how about a poll tax?

I've lost all faith in the American voter.....he's clearly stupid, lazy, and easily swayed by the media, otherwise Bush and Skerry wouldn't be tied at this point. So, what about a $50 tax to vote?
Your average lazy, uninformed voter isn't gonna pay that to vote.....only the people that really care enough to learn what the issues are will.

I don't CARE if only 0.5% of the country votes.....quality of votes is more important than quantity.....

AoD



That was tried before.  It's illegal.




It's only illegal because the Pompus Princesses of the Potomac (Supreme Court) said that it was illegal.

It was perfectly legal for almost 200 years in this fine country.

It ought to be legal again.  Idiots ought not to be able to vote.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:36:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:36:56 PM EDT
I'm all for regressive taxes.  It makes people scream bloody murder whenever government spending is proposed.  Progressive taxation, on the other hand, encourages government spending because the masses aren't paying for it, those awful rich people are.  
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:37:21 PM EDT
Who is going to set the standards for who can/can't vote?  Will you have to own actual property, need to have a college degree, etc..   Maybe reforming the educational system to teach the voters what they need to know is better in a democracy then telling them they have no right to vote and avoid that slippery slope.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:39:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:40:22 PM EDT
Well if you use the reasoning of everyone else, sure add a poll tax. This will only prove the stupidity of other laws where we lost rights that are claimed as only a priveledge.  ex: Rights to hunt, fish, carry a weapon, drive, etc. These rights are gone replaced as a priveledge instead of common sense.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:41:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rayra:
I prefer Heinlein's method - only those who've already served the nation (in ANY capacity) get a say in its Leadership and Direction.



Bad idea.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:41:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rayra:
I prefer Heinlein's method - only those who've already served the nation (in ANY capacity) get a say in its Leadership and Direction.



I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:43:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:43:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pv74:
A poll tax?
Talk about a lead baloon!




But better than a service requirement.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:45:23 PM EDT
Isn't that agenst the constitution?

Hey thats a good idea. Then they could tax us $5 million for a .22 bullet.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:49:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FOX-:
Isn't that agenst the constitution?




There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that makes a poll tax illegal.

It was common practice for 200 years of the Republic.  It was only outlawed by a liberal Supreme Court.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:50:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tisfortexas:
Well if you use the reasoning of everyone else, sure add a poll tax. This will only prove the stupidity of other laws where we lost rights that are claimed as only a priveledge.  ex: Rights to hunt, fish, carry a weapon, drive, etc. These rights are gone replaced as a priveledge instead of common sense.



Funny, the founding fathers never said anything about a right to vote. The states were allowed to set the standard for voting. You are going off a French concept of "One man, One vote". Planerench out.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 2:54:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By tisfortexas:
Well if you use the reasoning of everyone else, sure add a poll tax. This will only prove the stupidity of other laws where we lost rights that are claimed as only a priveledge.  ex: Rights to hunt, fish, carry a weapon, drive, etc. These rights are gone replaced as a priveledge instead of common sense.



Funny, the founding fathers never said anything about a right to vote. The states were allowed to set the standard for voting. You are going off a French concept of "One man, One vote". Planerench out.



"a French concept of "One man, One vote". "

Enough said.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:05:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:13:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By FOX-:
Isn't that agenst the constitution?




There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that makes a poll tax illegal.

It was common practice for 200 years of the Republic.  It was only outlawed by a liberal Supreme Court.



I guess you are in the too ignorant to vote category.

24th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:15:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Karaya1:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Do not allow those who get government handouts to vote, those who pay taxes can only vote.



No representation with out taxation!!!!!

lol. That would make a FINE T-shirt.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:19:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By rayra:
I prefer Heinlein's method - only those who've already served the nation (in ANY capacity) get a say in its Leadership and Direction.



Bad idea.

Why is it a bad idea?



Generally, you have punk kids going into the military. They have their will broken at boot and are subsequently trained in a uniform methodology for making war. Most veterans have similar traits and thought processes when they get out. Years later some diverge from this initial path of brotherhood but few do. Were the process to be geared around the vote being granted to those who have served, a cycle would ensue that would tend to overemphasize the importance of the military/government in general. Remember, the founders feared the standing army above all (reference amendment #2 and the requirement for regular reapproval for the existance of an army). A military state and possible dictatorship is one possibility.

I also believe that the clamour of the young to get-in their required service would water down services that now attract only those gung-ho to exceed in them and further, would require the creation of before useless agencies and civil services for those who are not bent toward the military. This could backfire on the very people who benefitted from military service and wish for service requirements for all by creating an almost communist economy of government service for sustenance period in the lives of a great number of the youth. Communists being made of young skulls full of mush is the second possibility.

We have already seen the dumbing down of the citizenry due in large part by public education where the children under the guise of learning the basics now recieve at the earliest ages propaganda ranging from unrealistic social behaviour to sexual education all from teachers that work from standardized curriculum. The founders would be pained to learn that the limited government they created was responsible for the education of the citizenry. It is a recipe for disaster that will soon catch up with us. Ideas and methods used in education should be as diverse as the states of the union. The government is NOT the focus of our lives but would become so if service was a requirement.

Finally, I believe the founding fathers were of a level of intelligence a full order of magnitude above any of our current members of acedemia and if they felt the states should create their own manner of voter qualification that is probably a very good idea.

I could write a thesis on this but don't have the space or time. Suffice to say I truely believe the principles of Christianity (self government) to be the magic of the American Republic. Public service will result in a benevolent dictatorship at best, and a full fledged Communist state at the worst. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:19:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By rayra:
I prefer Heinlein's method - only those who've already served the nation (in ANY capacity) get a say in its Leadership and Direction.



Bad idea.

You'll have to qualify that. Why?
I say only those that step up and PROVE / Demonstrate their willingness to serve for the common good should have a say how things are done.

(can't wait for some childish Libertarian to seethe 'that's Socialism', or one of our scores of DU trolls to label it Fascist! - spit)
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:21:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By FOX-:
Isn't that agenst the constitution?




There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that makes a poll tax illegal.

It was common practice for 200 years of the Republic.  It was only outlawed by a liberal Supreme Court.



I guess you are in the too ignorant to vote category.

24th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



That was added to the Constitution at a later date.  My point was that it was not originally part of the Constitution.

Poll taxes were common for most of this country's history.

And thanks for calling me ignorant.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:22:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:23:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:27:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Phil_A_Steen:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By FOX-:
Isn't that agenst the constitution?




There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that makes a poll tax illegal.

It was common practice for 200 years of the Republic.  It was only outlawed by a liberal Supreme Court.



I guess you are in the too ignorant to vote category.

24th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



Although that was added rather recently and was not the founder's idea.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:28:16 PM EDT
I have been thinking about a few things that might improve the way in which voters shape our government. These are not sweeping changes and some of them have substantial freedom of speech issues.

first and foremost. VOTER REGISTRATION REFORM

It is nice that in most states it is easy to register, however 527s have taken voter registration into their own hands. with Groups like ACT and New Voters Project running around recruiting ignorant college kids to beg badger and plead with every passerby to vote, not only is potenital for abuse rediculously high, but people that dont know anything about the issue, and do not have any core beleifs are being registered to vote. If Legislation was passed to keep regisration out of the hands of unregulated groups the registered electorate would improve with each election cycle.


If more restrictions were placed on TV and print advertisments it would begin to take away the main source of influence of ignorant voters. Without MoveOn.org type adds adgitating the lower rungs of our society to go vote on false issues the election would at least start to focus on more real issues.

This will never happen for 2 reasons. a person could make a reasonable argument that it infringed on the first ammendment, and it would give republicans a huge advantage (without the dems being able to as successfully turn out hobo,crackhead, and welfare votes). this would never be allowed to fly by the left and moderate portions of our government
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:30:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AoD:
...how about a poll tax?



Nah, just institute a flat tax, and eliminate withholding on paychecks. You'll see better election results instantly. The problem is lack of feedback; most people don't feel the .gov pinch, and thus have no problem seeing it as a source of entitlements. And then, they vote accordingly.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:31:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 3:49:16 PM EDT by rayra]
[planerench] ah, so you predicate your whole disagreement on Service by mischaracterizing as solely MILITARY service - I said "in ANY capacity", and I mean ANY - civil service, community service, volunteer fire & PD, elder care, teacher's assist - anything that aids the Nation and community. Set terms for different risk categories. And at least a few years in ANY category before you are allowed to exercise your  franchise.
We already, as the Romans did, provide a path to Citizenship through military service.

I for one am sick of welfare recipients ad non-contributing members of this society having the ability to vote for MORE social spending. Bread & Circuses Insanity.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 3:52:50 PM EDT
I was reading this, laughing at some of the responses...until I realized some of you were serious.

Restrictions on voting rights?  Have you completely lost your mind?  Replace the words in your comments.  Everytime you say vote, replace it with gun.  Then it would look just like a thread on DU...or one that Sarah Brady would be proud of.

What utter ignorance.  And like one person said, how ironic.

Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:11:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rayra:
[planerench] ah, so you predicate your whole disagreement on Service by mischaracterizing as solely MILITARY service - I said "in ANY capacity", and I mean ANY - civil service, community service, volunteer fire & PD, elder care, teacher's assist - anything that aids the Nation and community. Set terms for different risk categories. And at least a few years in ANY category before you are allowed to exercise your  franchise.
We already, as the Romans did, provide a path to Citizenship through military service.

I for one am sick of welfare recipients ad non-contributing members of this society having the ability to vote for MORE social spending. Bread & Circuses Insanity.



You obviously missed everything passed the first paragraph. People will want the right to vote. The clamor for non-military service will produce a new set of useless services. You just can't use everyone in a full-time voluntary service out of war-time. BTW it is socialist or will result in it as I later explained. The military is just not all it is cracked up to be. I love it, don't get me wrong, but not as a requirement. I don't believe we actually need a standing army and the navy only needs so many deck swabbers. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:12:56 PM EDT
Ask Andy what happened when they tried to institute a poll tax in the U.K.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:15:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 4:15:54 PM EDT by EternallyIndebted]
This is why the Electoral College was established.

And a poll tax... yea, already implemented and totally illegal. It's like saying, "Now, all you blond-haird, blue-eyed youth ... you stand over there so as not to get shot. And all you other muddy-gened fucks... well... you're SOL..."
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 4:15:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:


However, this plan is just not cool, aside from being illegal.   And just IMAGINE the libs coming out in force about how blacks are all poor and this is targetting blacks, blah blah blah, liberal douche-baggery, blah blah blah.

YMMV


- BG




That could be stuffed up the libs ass easily.

Blacks are about 11% of the nations population, yet 20% of the USMC is black.

The services and .gov is MINORITY HEAVY!

Top Top