• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican vs. Democracy Voting

Republican vs. Democracy Voting

  • Republican

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • Democracy

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
When the 13 independent colonies were freed from the grip of Great Britain, the standard voting practice was done with public votes by land owners. The thinking was that those that actually owned land had a stake in the welfare of the city/county/state/country they resided in and to prevent masses of people from voting themselves largesse from the land owners. This was the way voting was done up until the 1820's when the Whig and Democratic parties platformed for change to allow all white males to vote and was passed in time for Andrew Jackson to be elected. This is why I prefer to call the Republican method of voting.

The current way of voting is that everyone can vote that is 18 and above. This had lead to a large warfare/welfare state where the key issues aren't filled with substance, but about who can redistribute the wealth of the property owners into the pockets of the non-property owners.

Which do you prefer?
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well so much for having a discussion between the two types of voting systems...
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,760
Reaction score
22,360
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I guess I will go with expanded voting rights as voting, in my opinion, is a matter of human dignity and is far more important than mere money.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,995
Reaction score
74,814
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I believe those who pay more taxes (or have say served the nation in the military etc) should have more say than those who are on the dole.

I don't think 51 welfare recipients should be able to vote away the wealth of 49 hard working net tax payers
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,995
Reaction score
74,814
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I guess I will go with expanded voting rights as voting, in my opinion, is a matter of human dignity and is far more important than mere money.
its more than money-if a large amount of your income is taken in taxes you are basically enslaved a great deal of time
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I guess I will go with expanded voting rights as voting, in my opinion, is a matter of human dignity and is far more important than mere money.
A fine point of view, but do you agree with the non-property owners being able to use their votes to remove property from one group of people to another? What about using their power to legislate what they think the rest of the country should follow what they believe in regards to morality?
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A fine point of view, but do you agree with the non-property owners being able to use their votes to remove property from one group of people to another? What about using their power to legislate what they think the rest of the country should follow what they believe in regards to morality?
Then let's only let gays vote on whether they should be allowed to marry or not. :roll:

Regardless of the issue, we ALL live in the US, and what affects one of us, has an impact, even if it is indirect on all of us. Because of this, I see no reason to limit voting access.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,995
Reaction score
74,814
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Then let's only let gays vote on whether they should be allowed to marry or not. :roll:

Regardless of the issue, we ALL live in the US, and what affects one of us, has an impact, even if it is indirect on all of us. Because of this, I see no reason to limit voting access.
I do. People like us pay the price when those without any skin in the game can vote to confiscate our property.

I think the more taxes you pay, the more votes you should have. Just like Bill Gates has more votes in how microsoft is run than me
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Then let's only let gays vote on whether they should be allowed to marry or not. :roll:

Regardless of the issue, we ALL live in the US, and what affects one of us, has an impact, even if it is indirect on all of us. Because of this, I see no reason to limit voting access.
A fair point, but I'd like to point out that back when there was Republican voting the state was involved a whole lot less in the lives of the people then it is today. If the issues were clearly related to the things the government is clearly defined to having a role in, by the Constitution, would you still hold that same view?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,995
Reaction score
74,814
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Then let's only let gays vote on whether they should be allowed to marry or not. :roll:

Regardless of the issue, we ALL live in the US, and what affects one of us, has an impact, even if it is indirect on all of us. Because of this, I see no reason to limit voting access.

I agree about that concerning gays-just as gun owners should have the only say about gun laws? Hunters about bag limits? or net tax payers about tax rates.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,794
Reaction score
8,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No taxation without representation

Was that not a rally cry of the American Revolution

That 7 year old buying candy is getting taxed (sales tax), the 15 year working at Burger King is paying FICA
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree about that concerning gays-just as gun owners should have the only say about gun laws? Hunters about bag limits? or net tax payers about tax rates.
And welfare recipients about welfare laws/benefits. See where this is heading? Niche voting, with each issue only addressed by the interest group. Problem is, each issue affects other people, involved in the issue or not.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,995
Reaction score
74,814
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
And welfare recipients about welfare laws/benefits. See where this is heading? Niche voting, with each issue only addressed by the interest group. Problem is, each issue affects other people, involved in the issue or not.
nah, those being given welfare should have no say in how much others pay.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A fair point, but I'd like to point out that back when there was Republican voting the state was involved a whole lot less in the lives of the people then it is today. If the issues were clearly related to the things the government is clearly defined to having a role in, by the Constitution, would you still hold that same view?
Problem is, the US is vastly different than it was in 1800. Because of that fact, yes, I would have the same view, even if we are talking about things that the government has a clearly defined role in.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,995
Reaction score
74,814
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No taxation without representation

Was that not a rally cry of the American Revolution

That 7 year old buying candy is getting taxed (sales tax), the 15 year working at Burger King is paying FICA
no representation without taxation and those who are net tax consumers shouldn't have a say
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
nah, those being given welfare should have no say in how much others pay.
Those being given welfare should absolutely have a say in what benefits they receive.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,794
Reaction score
8,577
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
no representation without taxation and those who are net tax consumers shouldn't have a say
I dont recall the rally cry saying anything about net tax consumers.

Besides an 18 year old working at KFC, who is out of school living at home with mommy and daddy is paying more in taxes then he/she gets back. So they would get to vote, but 70 year olds on SS would not.

A sound idea, I think not.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
When the 13 independent colonies were freed from the grip of Great Britain, the standard voting practice was done with public votes by land owners. The thinking was that those that actually owned land had a stake in the welfare of the city/county/state/country they resided in and to prevent masses of people from voting themselves largesse from the land owners. This was the way voting was done up until the 1820's when the Whig and Democratic parties platformed for change to allow all white males to vote and was passed in time for Andrew Jackson to be elected. This is why I prefer to call the Republican method of voting.

The current way of voting is that everyone can vote that is 18 and above. This had lead to a large warfare/welfare state where the key issues aren't filled with substance, but about who can redistribute the wealth of the property owners into the pockets of the non-property owners.

Which do you prefer?
I prefer contributors to be allowed to vote.
That is not based on gender, race, religion etc.

So one who does not add value or contribute in some quantifiable form to the, shouldn't be voting.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I prefer contributors to be allowed to vote.
That is not based on gender, race, religion etc.

So one who does not add value or contribute in some quantifiable form to the, shouldn't be voting.
It is very short-sighted to consider money as the only quantifiable form of contribution.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,995
Reaction score
74,814
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Those being given welfare should absolutely have a say in what benefits they receive.
yeah they can decline them but they sure should have no say in how much I have to pay.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
248,995
Reaction score
74,814
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I dont recall the rally cry saying anything about net tax consumers.

Besides an 18 year old working at KFC, who is out of school living at home with mommy and daddy is paying more in taxes then he/she gets back. So they would get to vote, but 70 year olds on SS would not.

A sound idea, I think not.
works for me and those of us in the top bracket should have more votes than someone in the bottom one
 

The_Patriot

DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I prefer contributors to be allowed to vote.
That is not based on gender, race, religion etc.

So one who does not add value or contribute in some quantifiable form to the, shouldn't be voting.
I would go that route but with the caveat of it being property owners and not contributers. History has shown that property owners make the best decisions since they are naturally inclined to be well versed in the issues of the day and to keep the best interests of the community in mind when voting. I like the public voting aspect as well since a person should be able to withstand any scrutiny by their neighbors regarding the way they voted.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
yeah they can decline them but they sure should have no say in how much I have to pay.
Again, since they are the recipients of the benefits, they should have say in what kinds of benefits they receive. What you pay is irrelevant if we are looking at this scenario as a niche issue. If you have say, then it is no longer a niche issue.
 
Top Bottom