Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

[Wacky Quacky]

That idea is actually close to what our Constitutional Framers had in mind when they created a bicameral federal legislature with only members of the House of Representatives elected by popular vote. Unfortunately, we have devolved into a Jerry Springer-level electoral circus as the means for selecting our political leaders.

Having at least one legislative body elected by taxpayers may be rational, but it would be politically untenable. Maybe we should have a simple voting test for federal elections: Being able to identify your U.S. Senators and Representative. Even with a 2/3 passing score. this would probably eliminate over half of current voters.

This is what I would prefer. A test. And just on basic political knowledge, nothing partisan:

Who is third in line for the presidency
What determines who the Speaker of the House is
Does the president write and pass the budget

These are things you should know before making a decision as important as who the next president is. Sadly, it seems most Americans are political retards who vote based off of fancy commercials they saw during American idol.

 

[Avatar4321]

Its a stupid idea. NO we don't want to go back to a POLL TAX. Maybe while we're at it, we'll repeal the 19th? For fucks sake no I'm not interested in going BACKWARDS.

You realize no one actually suggested a poll tax per se, right?

And backwards to what? What are you trying to move forward to? Because our culture (and with the culture our government) has been progressive backwards the past 100 years.

 

[Avatar4321]

Stay at home moms claimed as dependents on their husband's taxes would lose their right to vote.

Conservative family values.

Not actually true. As long as they file jointly, the income of both husband and wife are the same. There is no issue there unless you try to fabricate one. Perhaps you might want to try a better argument.

I can't file jointly with my spouse.

Why not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Stay at home moms claimed as dependents on their husband's taxes would lose their right to vote.

Conservative family values.

Not actually true. As long as they file jointly, the income of both husband and wife are the same. There is no issue there unless you try to fabricate one. Perhaps you might want to try a better argument.

lol, you are wrong. A stay at home mom does not have an income and does not pay taxes.

I was wrong about claiming your spouse as a dependent, but the point stands.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm suprised people are still attempting to argue that denying Americans the right to vote is "a good idea".

How about we cap the voting age, say at 65. Why should old people , who wont be around long have a say in the future of our country?

No one who works for the goverment should be allowed to vote! They get a government check and can vote themselves rasies!

No one who pays less than 25% in fed income tax should be allowed to vote! If you don't have enough skin in the game, gtfo!


I could go on, and really all that would be left is the a very small precent of Americans, who would rule over the rest of us like a serf class.

 

[regent]

Imagine the uproar if the president had been given the powers that people accuse him of not using to solve America's problems.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

Considering everyone pays sales tax, withholding, FICA, Oil, Phone, etc taxes, I'd say that everyone voting is a tax payer at this point.

 

[Koios]

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

No.

 

[Koios]

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

No.

Further, I'd advocate the opposite, by requiring all citizens of voting age to vote. It's not a right; it's a duty.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?

No.

Further, I'd advocate the opposite, by requiring all citizens of voting age to vote. It's not a right; it's a duty.

What if my choice is "none of the above"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stupid liberal...........
So you're perfectly fine with second and third generation welfare recipients voting to give themselves more free shit while never attempting to find a job and become a productive member of society?
Of course you are........
Dont you have an OWS rally to attend or something?

Second and third generation?



No one votes themselves "Free Shit". That's a fallacy.

Oh..come to think of it..it's not.

Because the super wealthy vote themselves "Free Shit".

They get to travel in first class, go to the best restaurants, and see broadway shows..all with your approval and on your dime.

Yeah.....Those fucken Obamas and their vacations on my dime are getting a little old.
So you're saying those second and third generation welfare recipients vote republican?
The problem with your theory on the rich is that they produce wealth and those jobs that the welfare recipients avoid. Big difference skippy.

Wealth is created by the consumer class of America, while the owners and managers exploit their advantages.

 

[Koios]

No.

Further, I'd advocate the opposite, by requiring all citizens of voting age to vote. It's not a right; it's a duty.

What if my choice is "none of the above"?

Then leave that office blank and only vote on issues that matter to you. The idea is to measure the will of the people, in a country of, for and BY the people.

 

[jillian]

Straw Man.

Well, let me ask you directly. Should people who pay no Federal income taxes be permitted to vote for politician who promises to give them largess from the Federal treasury if elected?

Yes they should. Unless of course you want to deny the vote to anyone who gets anything from the government.

You could start by disqualifying anyone with a financial interest in defense contractors.

if we ask the above (truly stupid and anti-constitutional) question, i propose we ask another...

should someone who only pays 13% in taxes and who offshores his money be allowed to vote? you know, given that such person gets a lot more freebies from the government than any poor person.

 

[jillian]

I'm suprised people are still attempting to argue that denying Americans the right to vote is "a good idea".

How about we cap the voting age, say at 65. Why should old people , who wont be around long have a say in the future of our country?

No one who works for the goverment should be allowed to vote! They get a government check and can vote themselves rasies!

No one who pays less than 25% in fed income tax should be allowed to vote! If you don't have enough skin in the game, gtfo!


I could go on, and really all that would be left is the a very small precent of Americans, who would rule over the rest of us like a serf class.

why would that surprise you, amy?

those very same people are, at this moment, trying to change voting rules so that the purple states won by obama don't ever go to democrats again. they're doing this by trying to do what virginia did yesterday... that is change the EC rules to redistribute electoral votes in accordance with their gerrymandered districts.

so if the hacks think only poor people vote for democrats (which is kind of funny) and they think they can shut down the democratic vote by denying those voters the opportunity to go to the polls, they absolutely would if they could.

that shouldn't surprise you at all.

they tried keeping people from voting early this past election.

they made sure that people in unfavorable (e.g, democratic) districts had to stand on line for hours and hours in some places in order to vote

and they told you that they wanted changed voter i.d. laws "to give romney pennsylvania".

it's not like they don't keep warning us.

 

[Seawytch]

not actually true. As long as they file jointly, the income of both husband and wife are the same. There is no issue there unless you try to fabricate one. Perhaps you might want to try a better argument.

i can't file jointly with my spouse.

why not?

doma

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Second and third generation?



No one votes themselves "Free Shit". That's a fallacy.

Oh..come to think of it..it's not.

Because the super wealthy vote themselves "Free Shit".

They get to travel in first class, go to the best restaurants, and see broadway shows..all with your approval and on your dime.

Yeah.....Those fucken Obamas and their vacations on my dime are getting a little old.
So you're saying those second and third generation welfare recipients vote republican?
The problem with your theory on the rich is that they produce wealth and those jobs that the welfare recipients avoid. Big difference skippy.

Wealth is created by the consumer class of America, while the owners and managers exploit their advantages.

Well you better get busy exploiting....you're falling behind.
Some people are leaders....then there's people like you. It's your choice.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

You know what I'm having a change of heart. I would LOVE to see the representation of any state willing to deny the vote to its law abiding adult citizens reduced in Congress!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its a stupid idea. NO we don't want to go back to a POLL TAX. Maybe while we're at it, we'll repeal the 19th? For fucks sake no I'm not interested in going BACKWARDS.

You realize no one actually suggested a poll tax per se, right?

Any tax that must be paid in order to vote is a de facto POLL TAX.

And backwards to what? What are you trying to move forward to? Because our culture (and with the culture our government) has been progressive backwards the past 100 years.

Backwards to before the 14th amendment you idiot. That's how far back you'd take us.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its a stupid idea. NO we don't want to go back to a POLL TAX. Maybe while we're at it, we'll repeal the 19th? For fucks sake no I'm not interested in going BACKWARDS.

You realize no one actually suggested a poll tax per se, right?

And backwards to what? What are you trying to move forward to? Because our culture (and with the culture our government) has been progressive backwards the past 100 years.

BTW, I love how you completely IGNORE my post where I address the chilling practical ramifications of your stupid idea.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...xpayers-be-allowed-to-vote-6.html#post6703855

Lovely idea, deny the vote to low ranking members of the U.S. military! Brilliant!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Taxes SHOULD fund a structured agency that simply keeps the peace and civility. But that's not what taxes do. Taxes support people who don't pay taxes. Voting gives the indolent, the lazy, the shiftless an opportunity to vote themselves a raise. If anything, they should have limited ballots. So that they can be heard on issues that don't involve voting themselves funds from the public treasury.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? You might have missed it, but the federal government does not operate on a direct democracy. Voting involves selecting people for federal offices. Those people will each have A PART in deciding the details of how to run the country. So I don't know what kind of "limited ballot" you are talking about.