kiwitt
Modern Earth Modder
Let's see ... who also considered other people lesser citizens ... I'll give you a clue.
And who considered all people should be treated equally ... another clue.
Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting
- Thread starter .Shane.
- Start date
Let's see ... who also considered other people lesser citizens ... I'll give you a clue.
And who considered all people should be treated equally ... another clue.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
You realize this would prevent a lot of students (like me) from voting as well? You don't think people who spend thousands of dollars and hours in higher education don't have a "stake" in the community?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I understand that, but I think you'd have a hard time making an internally-consistent argument for the denial of the franchise while remaining within the bounds of capitalism, or at least your libertarian variety of it. You're getting awfully close to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Out of interest, how likely are those people to vote anyway? It seems like they've already disavowed themselves of much interest in society.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Utterly disgusting.
Depends on how they became disabled. For example, if someone goes blind from multiple readings of Atlas Shrugged, you could have a point.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Hence why we must RL troll by passing this bill but making it so anybody who rents or mortgages also has a vote.
Actually, if I recall, that's not a federal law, just a state by state law. I don't know if any states still give convicts voting rights though.
Indeed. People left and right often forget that money is not the sole determinant of political views... plenty of Tea Party members are lower-income or even on government assistance. Just as many of the wealthy are liberals.
Indeed.
It just seems that that's a reason not to start a thread on it at all. There are always lunatics out there. No need to give them voice.Of course not. This is lunacy. So much so that I didn't think I needed to add much editorial to that effect.
These aren't the views of the tea party. the tea party is the whole gamut of unsatisfied republicans. Each "Tea party leader" has their own idea of what the tea party is all about.
Which is great. I have attended Tea Party events at Southfork Ranch near Dallas and make it my goal to get at least two tea partiers arguing with each other within an hour of me showing up.
Who is going to manage all these exceptions, and how are we going to pay for it?
Are you actually advocating for government and taxes here?
Privatized voting booths with the corporations running them getting extra votes and tax credits, silly.Who is going to manage all these exceptions, and how are we going to pay for it?
Are you actually advocating for government and taxes here?
If we all followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, you would find something close to Socialism by Marx's definition.
Heh. Sometimes I get frustrated at crap like my welfare abusing assistance abusing neighbors getting to vote on how my tax money should be spent and vent stuff like this, but I don't really mean it. Universal Suffrage for all citizens at 'x' age, it works.
I -am- open to raising 'x'.
I -am- open to raising 'x'.
Cheetah
Deity
Alright, I'll give it a try!
Background: I'm not very impressed with the understanding a lot of people utilise when casting their votes, so I would very much like to see some changes. Not exactly sure which changes, but I'm thinking...
Premise: Voters are electing representatives to rule their country in the best interest of the people living there. As such, it would seem sensible to limit the voters to people who have their lives in the country, who have an interest in making the country thrive, and who have the understanding necessary to know how to make it thrive.
Solution: So, after thinking about this for a bit, I might suggest something like the following. I do understand that any rule at all that limits voting rights may take away the right to vote from specific individuals who surely are well equipped to be voters, but in the interest of creating manageable rules, I think it is permissible to make some general rules.
1. Being a citisen of the country.
I think this is pretty self-evident for everyone, though a discussion of citisenship can probably be had. I'm not going into that for now however.
2. Minimum age for voting set to 25.
Early voting rights were usually set at 25 years of age and above (in addition to things like property ownership, etc.). It was then lowered and is now set at 18 for most countries. I would contend that people grew up fast and were usually ready for the realities of life during the times the voting age was lowered, and that today people in general take too much time to grow up and still act like yesteryears teenagers far into their twenties. Thus, I suggest we raise the age of voting to make sure the people that vote have a better grasp of what life as a normal adult is like, instead of the life where they can mooch of their parents, be irresponsible and do a half-hearted attempt at studying or working. I don't suggest we use the age of 25 just because of tradition, but to me it seems like a good age where we can cut of enough people who are too immature to vote while not cutting of too many.
3. Require actual productive input to society, either through income tax, voluntary work or child rearing.
If the "No taxation without representation!" actually has merit, then does not "No representation without taxation!" also have some merit? Now, a simple (or not so simple) taxation is not a good way of judging if one provides productively to society. Limiting voting rights to land owners definitely isn't. I suggest that three aspects are taken into account to decide if someone contributes productively to society in a way that should be rewarded with voting rights. Only one of the aspects are needed to pass this requirement. Firstly, one can have paid income tax during at least one of the years during the sitting government. Doesn't matter how much, as long as it is actually taxes from an individual's work. Taxes on property or capital income does not count, as one can get this without actually working in the society. Secondly, one can be an active member of a government acknowledged (so one can't just make up an organisation) voluntary organisation that works domestically with helping the less fortunate. Thirdly, one can raise children (either one's own or adopted, but as said children's parent or guardian) to be well-adjusted members of society (i.e.: the children have not committed felonies or otherwise severely broken any laws or customs). This of course means that if one's child does commit a felony, one would lose one's right to vote (even if one has other children who have not committed felonies) unless one can fall back on the first or second option.
4. Loss of voting rights if one has not raised any child by the age of 60.
The next generation is necessary if society is going to continue to function. As such, there should be strong incentives - or perhaps even a duty - to raise well-adjusted children to replace oneself. After all, it doesn't matter if the pensioners are all rich and can pay their way through old age, if there are no people to work society will stop functioning. Furthermore, old people without children have much less vested in the future of the society; for them it might be okay if society collapses a few years after they are gone. The voting rights should be limited to the people who will continue to live in society in the future.
5. A mandatory political literacy test.
Everyone who passes the previous requirements must also take a mandatory test of general and political knowledge. This test will check if the individual has the necessary understanding of reality, common sense and the political geography of the society. I suggest that 20% of the questions are made by the Supreme Justice, 50% by the political parties currently in parliament (the questions within those 50% are divided according to seats in parliament), 10% by the 5 wealthiest people in the country, and 5% by the most newly hired engineer (or other graduate from a field within the hard sciences) of the 4 most popular workplaces in the country. 75% of the test must be answered correctly to be allowed to vote. If this means people actually have to study for the test, than that is all the better.
And done. What do you think?
And which one of those lived to die of old age? That's right, none of them! So perhaps the solution is somewhere in the middle?
That's just evil. And pretty awesome!
How about 54? (xxx)
Well hell, at that point let's just replace our voter registration cards with our AARP membership cards
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
5. A mandatory political literacy test.
Everyone who passes the previous requirements must also take a mandatory test of general and political knowledge. This test will check if the individual has the necessary understanding of reality, common sense and the political geography of the society. I suggest that 20% of the questions are made by the Supreme Justice, 50% by the political parties currently in parliament (the questions within those 50% are divided according to seats in parliament), 10% by the 5 wealthiest people in the country, and 5% by the most newly hired engineer (or other graduate from a field within the hard sciences) of the 4 most popular workplaces in the country. 75% of the test must be answered correctly to be allowed to vote. If this means people actually have to study for the test, than that is all the better.
And done. What do you think?
I've always believed there should be an understanding of political knowledge for a voting test, but this seems a bit arbitrary.
I think there should be some sort of panel set up to craft an exam that evaluates knowledge of the checks and balances and our Constitution's protections. I wouldn't ask for the specific number since that's kind of going overboard, but merely the protections - women's voting rights, freedom of speech, etc. Amendments like Prohibition and Congress's salaries would be left out due to being irrelevant.
You don't want the test to be narrow or it will create an oligarchy, but you don't want it too general either as that defeats the point.
The specific questions would probably need work.
Cheetah
Deity
No it's not. Beating your children is illegal. Improperly raising your children so that they and society suffers, but indirectly, should also have some dis-incentive.
As for punishing those who decide not to have children: That is a problem I have specifically with socialised pension systems, social security and so on. Perhaps better for another thread. I think I gave a (very) short explanation for this in my post, but perhaps I should take time to flesh it out better. Might have to start another thread in fact... (but I'm pressed for time, so not sure if I can do that today).
Xanikk999
History junkie
That is terrible. Do they honestly think our "founding fathers" who lived over 200 years ago know whats best for our country today?
While we are at it why don't we disenfranchise blacks and women because apparently if our founding fathers did it it must be right!
While we are at it why don't we disenfranchise blacks and women because apparently if our founding fathers did it it must be right!
Cheetah, I appreciate the spirit of your post, but its impossible.
In terms of age, if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote.
In terms of taxation, we ALL pay taxation. Sales tax, gas tax, etc.... I'd wager that's not one person in the US who doesn't pay a tax of some (ANY!) kind.
In terms of age, if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote.
In terms of taxation, we ALL pay taxation. Sales tax, gas tax, etc.... I'd wager that's not one person in the US who doesn't pay a tax of some (ANY!) kind.
