Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/1/2006 4:24:06 AM EST
Thomas Jefferson said "all male persons of majority age and sane mind...owning property... and all persons in the colony who have paid taxes to the government in the past two years", should be allowed to vote. Is it asking too much that you must be a citizen? What about education requirements? Is is right that people getting welfare should vote? Is 18 too young to have enough life experience to vote? What standards would you require?
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:27:51 AM EST
Citizenship and residency in the district where you wish to vote for candidates, thats it. There should be no other requirement once you have reached voting age. Making other requirements opens the system up to abuse.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:30:22 AM EST
If you don't own property, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. MHO

echo6
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:30:31 AM EST
Every adult US citizen that puts forth an effort to research the candidates from various sources with opposing viewpoints. You should only vote in the races you do that for IMO.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:38:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By echo6:
If you don't own property, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. MHO

echo6


i agree with this for one HUGE reason. TAXES.

liberal metropolitan centers always vote for politicians who promise more. more "free" healthcare. more social security. more welfare...

but they don't bear the same burden that landowners do. people living in a rented apartment in boston don't care about the cost associated with these "programs" because it only costs them an extra .25% on their income tax, whereas the folks in rural MA are getting hammered with $16,000 in property taxes for their cars (which are taxed but a majority of inner-city dwellers don't own) and their land (which is taxed but inner-city dwellers don't own).


Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:47:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Citizenship and residency,and proof you paid taxes the previous year in the district where you wish to vote for candidates, thats it. There should be no other requirement once you have reached voting age. Making other requirements opens the system up to abuse.


Small change. See above in red.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:49:04 AM EST
taxpayers, and no not those who pay only the mandatory "payroll" taxes, talking Federal Income tax, for starters anyone who pays over $5,000 a year.

Obviously people dont work all their life, they retire, might live on social security alone,so after a lifetime Fed Income tax payment total of $100K they can vote for life. $5000 threshold would be indexed with inflation
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:51:15 AM EST
If you are on wellfare you should'nt be able to vote, it's a conflict of interest.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:51:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2006 4:53:00 AM EST by PBIR]

Originally Posted By echo6:
If you don't own property, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. MHO

echo6


So an active duty soldier that lives in base housing and therefore doesn't yet need property shouldn't be allowed to vote? I call shenanigans, they have more of a vested interest in the steering of our nation than joe fatass sitting on his couch watching cartoons in his trailer on a 1/4 acre tract in bumfuck egypt.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 4:53:11 AM EST
I do not own property, but 30 something percent of my income goes to the federal and state government. Therefor, I am pretty sure that I am entitled to a say in how the government spends it.

As much as I would like to say that people on government assistance should not have the right to vote, there are too many people that are not lifetime welfare recipiants. Those who fall on hard times and are on unemployment, welfare or social security should not be denied because some people work the system.

Being 18 years old allows you all of the responsibilities of adulthood, that does and should include the right to decide who governs them.

The following groups should not be entitled to vote....
1. Dead people
2. Illegal aliens
3. People who cannot speak/read/write English
4. Felons

Oddly, most of them vote democrat and the D's are the ones that keep trying to shoot down laws that require ID to vote.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 5:12:28 AM EST
I'm going to have to go with Heinlein on this. Everyone is born a 'resident' with certain rights. The 'privilege' of 'citizenship'(voting & holding public office) is earned through 2+ year of combat arms service.

wganz



Link Posted: 11/1/2006 5:15:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By nacrotek:
If you are on wellfare you should'nt be able to vote, it's a conflict of interest.


hear hear! if you are living on public assistance, you dont get to vote to give you more.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 5:18:16 AM EST
Non-citizens, welfare recipients and felons should not be allowed to vote.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 5:23:11 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 5:23:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By echo6:
If you don't own property, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. MHO

echo6


+1

Link Posted: 11/1/2006 5:57:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By PBIR:

Originally Posted By echo6:
If you don't own property, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. MHO

echo6


So an active duty soldier that lives in base housing and therefore doesn't yet need property shouldn't be allowed to vote? I call shenanigans, they have more of a vested interest in the steering of our nation than joe fatass sitting on his couch watching cartoons in his trailer on a 1/4 acre tract in bumfuck egypt.



+100....thank you

-Roth
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:00:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2006 6:00:49 AM EST by Greenhorn]
Every voter should be required to take a small, simple test to show that they know something about how the government works and something about international issues.

Why in the hell should you be allowed to vote if you know nothing about the government that you're voting for?
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:06:32 AM EST
You should be a citizen.
You should show proof of your identity.
You should reliquish your voting rights for a minimum of two years if you accept any public assistance. (Rights will be restored two years after your last acceptance of public assistance)
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:07:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By wganz:
I'm going to have to go with Heinlein on this. Everyone is born a 'resident' with certain rights. The 'privilege' of 'citizenship'(voting & holding public office) is earned through 2+ year of combat arms service.

wganz





I have to agree. Barring that, it should be limited to individuals/house-holds that do not recieve any federal assistance, welfare, food stamps, WIC etc. Too much conflict of interest. Please note that at certain times early in my marriage I would not have been eligable to vote.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:08:24 AM EST

I pay an assload of taxes. Shouldn't I be allowed to vote, as a legal resident of the United States?




I'm not actually complaining - it doesn't bother me that I cannot vote. It just seems somewhat inconsistent with the whole "no taxation without representation idea"


Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:11:47 AM EST
I used to think that it should be mandatory that anybody on welfare/foodstamps/etc. vote.

Then I realized the error in that idea. So, I figured that anybody too stupid to finish high school, or to live off the government teet like a parasite, doesn't deserve to vote.

Then I realized the folly of that mindset.

I am of the belief that anybody too fucking lazy to vote - doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. They deserve the kind of governement and benefits the people I vote into office allow them to have. If they don't like it - too damn bad... GO VOTE!!
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:13:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I pay an assload of taxes. Shouldn't I be allowed to vote, as a legal resident of the United States?




I'm not actually complaining - it doesn't bother me that I cannot vote. It just seems somewhat inconsistent with the whole "no taxation without representation idea"




I think any legal citizen, over 18, and like said previously, not dead, mentally ill, or a felon, should be allowed to vote. It's the VOICE of the people, whether they're deadbeat welfare moms with 5 kids and no job or Bill Fucking Gates. Take away their Voice, might as well cancel the Constitution or only apply it to certain people. After all, it's just a piece of paper.

Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:16:06 AM EST
In reality, most people are too stupid to vote, and the nation would be better off if they stayed home or didn't mail in their ballots. Unfortunately, the Dems are gonna vote anyway.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:21:58 AM EST
Public assistance recipients should be ineligible to vote. People who are unable to present a valid voter ID card (requiring age, citizenship, pulse, etc...) should also be ineligible to vote. Incarcerated felons and probationaries should also be prevented from voting.

I disagree somewhat with those who suggest that only landowners can vote. There are many people out there who are paying property taxes indirectly through a landlord, and are paying lots of taxes aside from property taxes.

I also believe that these restrictions are for national elections. State and local elections should create their own systems.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:24:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wales:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I pay an assload of taxes. Shouldn't I be allowed to vote, as a legal resident of the United States?




I'm not actually complaining - it doesn't bother me that I cannot vote. It just seems somewhat inconsistent with the whole "no taxation without representation idea"




I think any legal citizen, over 18, and like said previously, not dead, mentally ill, or a felon, should be allowed to vote. It's the VOICE of the people, whether they're deadbeat welfare moms with 5 kids and no job or Bill Fucking Gates. Take away their Voice, might as well cancel the Constitution or only apply it to certain people. After all, it's just a piece of paper.



Do mentally ill or mentally incompetent people and felons deserve to lose thier Constitutional rights? How about minors? Do they also not have Constitutional rights?

Just pointing out the folly of your post...
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:26:33 AM EST
LOL you people are so ignorant, maybe we should go back to the idea that only white male property owners should be allowed to own firearms too.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:28:25 AM EST
I don't agree that it should be restricted to property owners. In the 1700s this made sense, but not in a day when a lot of very successful, responsible people rent.
I think it should be restricted to taxpayers though...no one who is on welfare should be allowed to vote. As has been said, a democracy only lasts until the people discover they can vote themselves money.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:30:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By MetaPhaze:
LOL you people are so ignorant, maybe we should go back to the idea that only white male property owners should be allowed to own firearms too.


Ignorant? Do you feel you should have voting rights in a company where you own no stock? It is patently the SAME.

Land, labor and capital. Those are the keys to an economy and if you have none of the above, you have no stake in the voice of the government and therefore, should not vote.

How about kids? I know PLENTY of 16 year olds that work, pay taxes and invest but they cannot vote. Why 18?
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:35:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:36:40 AM EST
does the idea of losing voting rights if on public assisstance apply to all programs?
would student loans count as assisstance?

personally, I would, like some others, to see a Heinleinian system.

citizens and residents. citizenship is earned. no other way.
one must earn the right to vote. military would be one path, but I see police, public medical services
(EMS, etc.). hell, someone with a history degree could work as a ranger in a national historic site for a few years to earn the right to vote.
different jobs would earn at different rates. a soldier would earn voting rights faster than the park ranger.
the military would be about the only path to voting rights w/o being educated beyond college (insert che' kerry comment here).
of course, one would have to be a citizen to own property also.

question: in the above system, would a resident have second ammendment rights?

midwinter

Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:39:52 AM EST
Only those with an IQ of over 100.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 6:42:35 AM EST
I would laugh my ass off if some of you who propose tougher requirements found yourself disenfranchised. Be careful what you wish for.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 7:03:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2006 7:08:37 AM EST by Hebrew_Battle_Rifle]

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Accept government services, lose the right.
Everyone starts with it, you can only give it up.
Felonies, a full year or more on handouts of any kind (yes, that includes food stamps)
Even if you qualify for services, you don't have to accept them. That is the key difference.
Let them start with the right to vote, and watch how many squander it for a quick buck.
Those are the folks we don't want voting.
Just because you are poor doesn't mean you aren't a good citizen.



So that war veteran that gets medical care at the VA should not get to vote right? And that war veteran that lives in a rented apartment should not have the right to vote?

Some of you folks are just as bad as the socialists that you claim to hate.

And for those of you that think that remitting property extortion should be a requirement for voting rights, have you ever even considered that property taxes ( extortion) is a blatant violation of your rights? Yet you insist that governement continue to violate your rights in order for you to have the exclusive right to vote. THAT is stupid beyond description.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 7:16:24 AM EST
I dont think the requirememnt to own property is a sound one, do you really want the big developers to have a bigger say in politics? I DO own property but didnt from the age of 18 to 21 and still feel I should have the right to vote regardless.

If you pay taxes and are a Citizen, you should be able to vote, im still out on the Welfare bit but can see the logic...
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 7:24:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By echo6:
If you don't own property, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. MHO

echo6

My sentiments EXACTLY. There are WAY too many people with the right to vote who have NO FUCKING BUSINESS doing so!
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 7:34:56 AM EST
Have you taken government assistance in the last 12 months? Then no, you shouldn't be able to vote.

This includes welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and any other form of assistance. Including federally funded student loans or grants that you wouldn't be able to get in the open market.

This doesn't disqualify government employees or retirees taking their contractual benefits. A former soldier would not be penalized for the G.I. Bill.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 7:53:18 AM EST
I used to think only married couples with children and property should be allowed to vote, along with those prevoiusly or currently in the military. Now, certainly I would include anyone high school grad and gainfully employed. I think there needs to be some sort of "social value" rating of individuals that qualifies them to vote. I don't think gangbangers, dope smokers, unwed mothers and high school dropouts should have a voice in how our country is run since they offer little to our society until they themselves become productive.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 7:56:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By patio87:
I used to think only married couples with children and property should be allowed to vote, along with those prevoiusly or currently in the military. Now, certainly I would include anyone high school grad and gainfully employed. I think there needs to be some sort of "social value" rating of individuals that qualifies them to vote. I don't think gangbangers, dope smokers, unwed mothers and high school dropouts should have a voice in how our country is run since they offer little to our society until they themselves become productive.



Who say an unwed mother isnt productive? I know plenty of single women with kids, not married who are productive members od society
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:00:00 AM EST
Hard to believe so many great people have given their all for the rights which some of you would gladly deny others.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:03:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By wganz:
I'm going to have to go with Heinlein on this. Everyone is born a 'resident' with certain rights. The 'privilege' of 'citizenship'(voting & holding public office) is earned through 2+ year of combat arms service.

wganz





I'm going to have to go with some guys called the Founders, who knew a little more about governance than a science fiction writer.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:11:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2006 8:12:02 AM EST by GLOCKshooter]
You should have to submit a fingerprint card, photo, CLEO sign off, and pay a $200 tax stamp, then wait 3-6 months, then you can vote.

or,

Deny the vote to anyone stupid enough to get stuck in Iraq.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:14:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:

Originally Posted By echo6:
If you don't own property, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. MHO

echo6


i agree with this for one HUGE reason. TAXES.

liberal metropolitan centers always vote for politicians who promise more. more "free" healthcare. more social security. more welfare...

but they don't bear the same burden that landowners do. people living in a rented apartment in boston don't care about the cost associated with these "programs" because it only costs them an extra .25% on their income tax, whereas the folks in rural MA are getting hammered with $16,000 in property taxes for their cars (which are taxed but a majority of inner-city dwellers don't own) and their land (which is taxed but inner-city dwellers don't own).




Renters do pay property taxes, but not directly. They landlord pays the tax and charges the lessee.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:18:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:


Renters do pay property taxes, but not directly. They landlord pays the tax and charges the lessee.


Please do not bring common sense in to an argument for the ignorant.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:19:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Roland_O_Gilead:
Have you taken government assistance in the last 12 months? Then no, you shouldn't be able to vote.

This includes welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and any other form of assistance. Including federally funded student loans or grants that you wouldn't be able to get in the open market.

This doesn't disqualify government employees or retirees taking their contractual benefits. A former soldier would not be penalized for the G.I. Bill.


Why? They took Government benefits. You say don't let them vote. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander right?
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:20:36 AM EST
The problem with giving everyone the right to vote is the potential for abuse. This country started to decline when lazy, worthless, welfare cheats found that they could vote themselves money. They do this by voting for candidates that promise more social benefits. Those benefits are paid for by us, the people who work for a living.

Here is how to fix that problem. Welfare recipients lose the right to vote while they are receiving benefits and until they begin to pay back the money they were given. Citizens not receiving welfare benefits and not a felon or tax dodger receive one vote. Property owners receive one additional vote. Property owners pay an ass load of taxes that non property owners don't pay. Military veterans and current or former firefighters and LEOs receive an additional vote for their service. So some citizens could receive up to three votes. Some would not vote.

This country would be straightened out in a very short time under this system
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:29:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2006 8:30:08 AM EST by MetaPhaze]

Originally Posted By Headless_T_Gunner:
The problem with giving everyone the right to vote is the potential for abuse. This country started to decline when lazy, worthless, welfare cheats found that they could vote themselves money. They do this by voting for candidates that promise more social benefits. Those benefits are paid for by us, the people who work for a living.


That is such a small minority it is a joke.


Here is how to fix that problem. Welfare recipients lose the right to vote while they are receiving benefits and until they begin to pay back the money they were given. Citizens not receiving welfare benefits and not a felon or tax dodger receive one vote. Property owners receive one additional vote. Property owners pay an ass load of taxes that non property owners don't pay. Military veterans and current or former firefighters and LEOs receive an additional vote for their service. So some citizens could receive up to three votes. Some would not vote.


What is a tax doger? Someone who knows or hires someone who understands the IRS code better then some slackjawed yokel and is able to minmize taxes paid?

Renters pay an ass load of taxes too. What do you think the landlord just charges what the P&I of the mortgage, and absorbs the property taxes?

Many in the US Armed service take Government assistance to help their families while they are over seas. They also get plenty of benefits from the US Government that you and I pay. Should we stop them from voting, or is your convulted magical system you made up in your head hypocritical?


This country would be straightened out in a very short time under this system


No it wouldn't there are more holes in your argument then there are in Paris Hilton's panties.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:43:51 AM EST
Only gun owners should be allowed to vote.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 8:51:52 AM EST
It's really simple. Think of government handouts as bribes.

Candidate A says "If you elect me, I will give you $1,000 a month."

Candidate B says "If you elect me, I will give you $5,000 a month."

Who are welfare recipients going to vote for?


Link Posted: 11/1/2006 11:03:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Roland_O_Gilead:
Have you taken government assistance in the last 12 months? Then no, you shouldn't be able to vote.

Including federally funded student loans or grants that you wouldn't be able to get in the open market.


Are you aware of the fact that Stafford Loans ARE LOANS ? You are required to pay them back. DUH ! Some of us peasants needed financial aid to pay for college, and WE paid back our loans- WITH interest. Now if you are talking about the deadbeat loan defaulters- I agree- take away the right to vote. But I've paid back the money I owed. A private bank bought my Stafford loan from my university- so the .GOV got their money back years ago. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 11:24:12 AM EST
Only men.
Link Posted: 11/1/2006 1:41:29 PM EST
Raise the voting age back to 21 instead of 18, if you can't buy booze you shouldn't vote.
That'll put an end to the arguement of I can vote but can't buy booze.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top