Why Do We Need Less People Voting And Not More??

[Some Guy]

I'd prefer that only informed voters voted.

Who determines what voters are informed or not?

Are you talking about those poll tax questions they use to give black folks -- but somehow conveniently didn't enforce on white voters?

That's the problem. As soon as you give the government the power to do something, the people in charge of government will find a way to use it as a means to their ends.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still waiting for someone to tell me what the founder of the "Christian Right" meant when he said this:

“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

By the way, this was said over 30 years ago -- before the made up stories of dirty brown people voting illegally by the millions.

Still waiting for someone to tell me what the founder of the "Christian Right" meant when he said this:

“I don’t want everybody to vote"

He wanted supporters of his candidates to vote.

He didn't want supporters of his candidates opponents to vote.

Feel better?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Eliminate the 17th Amendment as well. Let the states send their reps

Eliminate the Income tax, let the state fund their ratable share of government based upon their EV

That would obliterate red states, which take in far more federal money than they contribute.

That would obliterate red states, which take in far more federal money than they contribute.

So we can count on your support to stick it to the red states?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Eliminate the 17th Amendment as well. Let the states send their reps

Eliminate the Income tax, let the state fund their ratable share of government based upon their EV

That would obliterate red states, which take in far more federal money than they contribute.

That would obliterate red states, which take in far more federal money than they contribute.

So we can count on your support to stick it to the red states?

100%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Eliminate the 17th Amendment as well. Let the states send their reps

Eliminate the Income tax, let the state fund their ratable share of government based upon their EV

That would obliterate red states, which take in far more federal money than they contribute.

That would obliterate red states, which take in far more federal money than they contribute.

So we can count on your support to stick it to the red states?

100%

Excellent! Tell all your Dem reps.

 

[fncceo]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

Fewer people, not less.

 

[Moonglow]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

and you had to own no less than forty acres...

 

[bodecea]

Still waiting for someone to tell me what the founder of the "Christian Right" meant when he said this:

“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

By the way, this was said over 30 years ago -- before the made up stories of dirty brown people voting illegally by the millions.

Because he knows the majority doesn't agree with him.

 

[Moonglow]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

Fewer people, not less.

They can lose the weight.

 

[fncceo]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

Fewer people, not less.

They can lose the weight.

Then it would be less people.

 

[Moonglow]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

Fewer people, not less.

They can lose the weight.

Then it would be less people.

But less is fewer.

 

[Moonglow]

The header is in all caps, the mods must not see it cause they be looking for Chinese language pictographs.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Eliminate the 17th Amendment as well. Let the states send their reps

Eliminate the Income tax, let the state fund their ratable share of government based upon their EV

That would obliterate red states, which take in far more federal money than they contribute.

That would obliterate red states, which take in far more federal money than they contribute.

So we can count on your support to stick it to the red states?

100%

Excellent! Tell all your Dem reps.

I do. In a world without social conservatism, I’d be a republican.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Shall I trot out the dozens of liberal statements expressing the wish that the "racist, homophobic, backward, anti-science, gun-loving, xenophobic" conservative voters would stop voting?

But, to address your question, let me ask two questions: One, if someone can't name the three branches of government, can't name two of the first four presidents, and needs help reading the ballot, should they be voting? Two, if you were holding elections for the CEO of your company, would you want the mailroom clerks and the janitorial staff to have an equal vote with board members, managers, and senior employees?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Would it go to that? Kind of a big ordeal to just assume, doncha think?
Would society be better off the way we are going?

Would restricting the vote to landowners return society to feudalism? No. Would this, along with other current trends in society, likely result in a return to feudalism? I don't think I could say that, precisely. But your suggestion would be a significant step toward that direction. Those kinds of practices were always highly flawed, and favored arbitrary elites retaining power in ways that were often hereditary and were prone to tyranny.

The practice of restricting suffrage to landowners stems directly from feudalism, where the crown was sovereign and the crown's noble peers enjoyed near-sovereignty within their baronies. Landlord's "voted" by their inclusion in early Parliaments, while tenants were largely at the mercy of those barons who usually taxed them into perpetual poverty. Often, tenants were even legally prohibited from moving out of the baron's jurisdiction.

As Parliament developed, standard practice became for the Crown to call upon every county to send two knights to represent the county, and for self governing towns (i.e. large towns that weren't fiefs held by a lord through land-tenure) to send two burgesses (free commoners) who were elected by the borough. But the Sovereign held the absolute right to allow or disallow boroughs representatives from participating in Parliament, and would wield that power when the town's representatives weren't willing to support the Crown's policies. The right to have a voice or influence in the government therefore remained de facto limited to the Crown, the land-tenured nobility, the clergy, key military officers.

Eventually Parliament developed into an upper and lower house and the Commons as a whole would begin to often act in opposition to the Crown's policies, and even began impeaching some of the Crown's ministers. As the Crown became unable to control the Commons, the 40 shilling freeholder law was enacted in order to reinforce the power of the Crown and the land-tenured nobility by restricting influence in the Commons to freeholders who were similarly situated to the nobility.

 

[fncceo]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

Fewer people, not less.

They can lose the weight.

Then it would be less people.

But less is fewer.

Similar meanings, different usages.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Shall I trot out the dozens of liberal statements expressing the wish that the "racist, homophobic, backward, anti-science, gun-loving, xenophobic" conservative voters would stop voting?

Is there a long history of policies in place designed to keep white homophobic racists from voting? Because in the case of what Paul Weyrich was talking about, the history is clear on that -- which is WHY you don't see any democrats trying to close polling stations hours earlier in rural white districts do you?

But, to address your question, let me ask two questions: One, if someone can't name the three branches of government, can't name two of the first four presidents, and needs help reading the ballot, should they be voting?

Yes, especially if the people they are voting for will be crafting policies that would affect them. Again, I am against anyone who tries to prevent legal voters from voting based on whatever arbitrary sets of criteria you want to place on them -- at one point it will be one set, then when those in power want more power, they will scope that criteria to achieve just that.

Two, if you were holding elections for the CEO of your company, would you want the mailroom clerks and the janitorial staff to have an equal vote with board members, managers, and senior employees?

Typical jibberish from a person who wants to take away people's right to vote

First, the US is a country governed by a constitution that already laid out the method for how one votes. If that imaginary company you are talking about has rules in place for how a CEO is selected that included allowing everyone to have a vote, that company is within its right to do so.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Can someone explain to me why it is better for any party, but especially the Republican party that less people vote??

If your party and your candidate has a platform and policies that appeals to a larger array of people -- shouldn't you want higher voter participation instead of less?

After some of the usual suspects get done crying about how illegals are voting in the millions -- I would really like for a rational person to explain to me why any party would want less voters and not more?

Fewer people, not less.

They can lose the weight.

Then it would be less people.

But less is fewer.

Similar meanings, different usages.

but same deflection.

 

[there4eyeM]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

Then you would love a dictator. Let’s just get rid of voting rights.

No i wouldnt. I dont want to do that, either.
I just clearly stated i wanted only land owners to vote.

Why?

Because America is stupid.
Too many people in the ring without having no reason to be there.
Why should jane vote for how my tax money is spent when she doesnt pay taxes and gets paid simply to exist?

If this were a serious question, the answer would be, "because it's democratic".
As the question is facetious, there is no answering it.

 

[TNHarley]

America is fucking stupid
I wish it was only land owners that voted

Then you would love a dictator. Let’s just get rid of voting rights.

No i wouldnt. I dont want to do that, either.
I just clearly stated i wanted only land owners to vote.

Why?

Because America is stupid.
Too many people in the ring without having no reason to be there.
Why should jane vote for how my tax money is spent when she doesnt pay taxes and gets paid simply to exist?

If this were a serious question, the answer would be, "because it's democratic".
As the question is facetious, there is no answering it.

No, it was serious.
Really, i wouldnt even have this position if more than half the country paid taxes.
If so many people didnt sat on their fat ass all day not giving a damn about the consequences of their "gimme gimme gimme" voting..