When George Washington was elected only 6% of the population could vote because you had to be a white male property owner over the age of 21. It wasn't until 1856 that the vote was expanded to include all white men. In 1868 black men got the vote and finally in 1920 women got the right to vote . It wasn't until 1972 that the voting age was lowered to 18 and the steady dumbing down of the voter pool was complete. Before people start screaming racist and misogynist that is not my point here. I'm fine with all races and women voting but we never should have dropped the property owner requirement and never should have lowered the voting age to 18. When you have reached a point in your life where you own property you have demonstrated the ability to participate in this society in a contributing way but the main thing is you have skin in the game. At this point you want America to be a stable functioning country that is prosperous and has an effective economy where your hard work will be rewarded and safe guarded. Kids and non property owners are going to vote on and for different issues than they will or would when they are a participating member of our economy and should not be allowed to vote until they do more than hang around the fringes. The extreme example of this is people on welfare voting and kids in school who have never had a job in their lives. These people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by voting against a thriving economy and for give away programs to benefit them and will vote in their own self interest instead of considering what is best for the country at large. IMO we should reinstate the original voting requirement of being a property owner.
If you can breathe, and you're a citizen, you should have a say in how government affects your life.
It is a failing, not an advantage, of the US Constitution that the right to vote is not explicitly spelled out.
Your policy recommendations may have changed, but the intention obviously has not. Your goal is to disenfranchise people who vote differently than you. You can't even be bothered to base your position on principle -- it's all based on the consequence of someone voting for things you don't like.
Your policy recommendations may have changed, but the intention obviously has not. Your goal is to disenfranchise people who vote differently than you. You can't even be bothered to base your position on principle -- it's all based on the consequence of someone voting for things you don't like.
IMV, any individual who has received an entitlement payment (excluding SS and Medicare) within 180 days of a federal election should be disenfranchised from voting as they would likely vote for a candidate that supported continuation of those payments...
I don't think we should be disenfranchising voters based on how they're likely to vote, even if its for something I don't like.
That wasn't the point of the post... :roll:
It sure looks like it was. Taking a group of citizens and telling them they can't vote because belonging to that group could influence them to vote one way.
No, it is because they are dependent on the tax dollars taken from another person, or government borrowing, for their continued existence...
A lot of people vote based on government programs and funding that are dependent on others tax dollars and borrowing. It's generally not good that they do it, but they shouldn't be disenfranchised.
A.K.A. Ka-KaWhat is crap exactly?
So, in your simplistic view, my four year old granddaughter should have a say in how government affects her life? I don't agree. The Constitution left it up to the States to determine the qualifications to vote for members of their legislators, and those same rules apply to federal offices. It has since been modified to deny States the ability to disenfranchise individuals based on certain characteristics. Now that tax dollars forcibly sent to the federal government by individuals and subsequently sent to other individuals to meet basic needs, there should be a discussion on this subject.
IMV, any individual who has received an entitlement payment (excluding SS and Medicare) within 180 days of a federal election should be disenfranchised from voting as they would likely vote for a candidate that supported continuation of those payments...
I think only taxpayers should be allowed to vote, if you aren't literally contributing to our society why should you have any say in it?
Voting should be treated as a cherished privilege which is to be earned and maintained, not given away just because one happens to be a citizen...
:agree: It's human nature at it finest!
Off topic, but the doctors here inform me that I should wait till Spring to ride my bike. I'm afraid not to listen to them, so it's already in storage, but I sure do miss the fun of being a menace on the roadways!! :sigh:
Good afternoon, AP. :2wave:
It should be treated as a cherished privilege that needs to be taken seriously. But it shouldn't be taken away because people are liable to vote in their own self interest.
No, it should be lost when they require the federal government to provide payments for their basic needs...
Why? I honestly don't see why you should lose your right to vote over that. Like everyone else they generally vote for the government programs that benefit them, and to decrease their tax burden.
Why should the federal government bestow benefits on any individual?
Maybe it shouldn't. I don't see what that has to do with this. People should be allowed to vote in affirmation of benefits and against them.
With the percentage continually rising for those receiving benefits, the problem should be obvious...
There's certainly a problem. But your solution is wrong.
What's yours?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?