Should voting rights be changed?

[The T]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

Do you have a link for this sport? I'm sure I could find it rapidly in a Giggle search...but I thought the rule here was to post links/references?

Besides? I'd like to read the entire thing.

Thanks.

The forum rules prevent me from posting a link to the article until I have 15 posts. Its very cumbersome trying to circumvent the rule. Sometimes rules sort of collide with each other. No harm intended and I did reference the author.

OK. Good deal. I've got it anyway. Thanks for the answer.

~T

 

[Political Junky]

Cons have lost the Hispanic vote and now want to make it harder for them to vote.

 

[Yukon.]

Im quite certain that the GOP would love to make it mandatory that every eligible voter vote by assessing a 100.00 fine to those who fail to vote. By doing this about 80 million more people would vote and this would assure Obama's defeat.

Imagine if the Dems, by force of law, made all the red neck, gold toothed, pick-up truck driving, beer swilling, fat assed, armchair QB's, vote. Obama would be crushed. The White House, Congress, and Senate would be 100% W.A.S.P.

 

[The T]

Cons have lost the Hispanic vote and now want to make it harder for them to vote.

And should they care? Why the parsing? You prove a point. Conservatives don't care a wit of heritage in regard to pandering to garner VOTES.

Truth is on their side, and idiots as *YOU* fail miserably to see it. You're more concerned on power based upon lies, and RACE.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yeah it should be changed. you should have to be able to do some basic algebra before you can vote.

 

[The T]

Yeah it should be changed. you should have to be able to do some basic algebra before you can vote.

[*Or at minimum show that you have investigated a proposed candidate and know they're history*].

I wonder how many here knew that in the Constitution that there isn't an inherent FEDERAL right to vote...and that comes from another source?

 

[antagon]

that is nonsense. extra votes . i am, however, for back-tracking campaign funding limits. they've ruined the republican gallery, and by extension the balance of politics in the country.

 

[antagon]

Yeah it should be changed. you should have to be able to do some basic algebra before you can vote.

[*Or at minimum show that you have investigated a proposed candidate and know they're history*].

I wonder how many here knew that in the Constitution that there isn't an inherent FEDERAL right to vote...and that comes from another source?

i wonder how many know when to use their, there, and they're. where do we set the bar?

 

[HUGGY]

Cons have lost the Hispanic vote and now want to make it harder for them to vote.

Just watch...Some counties in California, Texas , New Mexico and Arizona will make the possession of more than a dozen tortillas a felony. That should take care of the GPO problem with those pesky Mexican immigrants.

 

[Sheldon]

Gun to my head, if we're talking about disenfranchising people, then instead of this I'd have it so you have to take a remedial two-question test before you can vote.

1. How many branches of government are there?

2. How many Senators does your state have?

 

[The T]

Yeah it should be changed. you should have to be able to do some basic algebra before you can vote.

[*Or at minimum show that you have investigated a proposed candidate and know they're history*].

I wonder how many here knew that in the Constitution that there isn't an inherent FEDERAL right to vote...and that comes from another source?

i wonder how many know when to use their, there, and they're. where do we set the bar?

I wonder if you know that I don't care of venacular...the point ...Got across?

NEXT.

 

[nraforlife]

Certainly worthy of discussion.

Personally I would fund the Federal Government by a single VOLUNTARY per capita tax of $10K (in2010 dollars) on every legal resident over the age of 21 plus a series of excise taxes on non-necessities. Federal Voting Rights (and eligibility for elective public office) would extend only to those with a history of paying the tax for three consecutive years. No employee of any federal agency would be eligible to either pay the tax or cast a vote. Neither would any person receiving a subsidy in any form from the Feds with the exception of a national dividend paid to ALL legal residents in an equal amount. The House of Representatives would be apportioned so as to have each district represent an approximately equal number of tax payers.

No corporate person would be permitted to donate to any federal election, nor to communicate privately to any federal office holder or employee by any means whatsoever. The ONLY contributions to a federal office seeker allowed would be from constituents with all such being fully public information.

No elected public official would receive compensation in any form whatsoever.

What you you think of a head tax,
Since all citizens receive the same services from the federal government. Example, the military protects each citizen equally, then all should pay the same tax.
BTW
I do agree with your notion of "voluntary tax", because after all we do live in a free society.
Some people seem to think that the government is the owner of an individuals property.

'head tax' or 'per capita tax' is essentially the same thing. Very important though is the voluntary part. Giving up a vote is a fair trade for exemption from taxation for repugnant purposes.

 

[nraforlife]

If you are going to consider such a thing, then my vote is that every person who served in the military and received an "honorable discharge" after a minimum of three years of service, should get two votes. THEY EARNED IT.

Not hardly.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think they need to be intelligently exercised.

 

[manifold]

[*Or at minimum show that you have investigated a proposed candidate and know they're history*].

I wonder how many here knew that in the Constitution that there isn't an inherent FEDERAL right to vote...and that comes from another source?

i wonder how many know when to use their, there, and they're. where do we set the bar?

I wonder if you know that I don't care of venacular...the point ...Got across?

NEXT.

what does venacular mean?

 

[Papageorgio]

Im quite certain that the GOP would love to make it mandatory that every eligible voter vote by assessing a 100.00 fine to those who fail to vote. By doing this about 80 million more people would vote and this would assure Obama's defeat.

Imagine if the Dems, by force of law, made all the red neck, gold toothed, pick-up truck driving, beer swilling, fat assed, armchair QB's, vote. Obama would be crushed. The White House, Congress, and Senate would be 100% W.A.S.P.

I'm sure the Dems find it repugnant to fine anyone for excerising free choice. Like the right to vote or not vote, the right to buy or not buy.

 

[antagon]

[*Or at minimum show that you have investigated a proposed candidate and know they're history*].

I wonder how many here knew that in the Constitution that there isn't an inherent FEDERAL right to vote...and that comes from another source?

i wonder how many know when to use their, there, and they're. where do we set the bar?

I wonder if you know that I don't care of venacular...the point ...Got across?

NEXT.

did my point about the futility of some righteous folks to set a bar for the suffrage of others come across clearly, too?

 

[rightwinger]

Certainly worthy of discussion.

Personally I would fund the Federal Government by a single VOLUNTARY per capita tax of $10K (in2010 dollars) on every legal resident over the age of 21 plus a series of excise taxes on non-necessities. Federal Voting Rights (and eligibility for elective public office) would extend only to those with a history of paying the tax for three consecutive years. No employee of any federal agency would be eligible to either pay the tax or cast a vote. Neither would any person receiving a subsidy in any form from the Feds with the exception of a national dividend paid to ALL legal residents in an equal amount. The House of Representatives would be apportioned so as to have each district represent an approximately equal number of tax payers.

No corporate person would be permitted to donate to any federal election, nor to communicate privately to any federal office holder or employee by any means whatsoever. The ONLY contributions to a federal office seeker allowed would be from constituents with all such being fully public information.

No elected public official would receive compensation in any form whatsoever.

What you you think of a head tax,
Since all citizens receive the same services from the federal government. Example, the military protects each citizen equally, then all should pay the same tax.
BTW
I do agree with your notion of "voluntary tax", because after all we do live in a free society.
Some people seem to think that the government is the owner of an individuals property.

The military does not protect each American equally. The wealthy benefit from a strong military more than the poor do. The military maintains stability, keeps despots in check, keeps the shipping and airways open ....all so commerce can continue unabated.

The poor also participate in the military to a much higher degree than the wealthy

 

[SpidermanTuba]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Here's my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management? Let's put it another way: I do not own stock, and hence have no financial stake, in Ford Motor Company. Do you think I should have voting rights or any say-so in the management of the company? I'm guessing that the average sane person's answer is no. You say, "Williams, just where are you heading with this?" I'm not proposing that we take voting rights away from those who do not pay taxes. What I'm suggesting is that every American gets one vote in every federal election, plus another vote for each $20,000 he pays in federal taxes. With such a system, there'd be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision-making right. Of course, unequal voting power could be reduced by legislating lower taxes.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This is not a far-out idea. The founders worried about it. James Madison's concern about class warfare between the rich and the poor led him to favor the House of Representatives being elected by the people at large and the Senate elected by property owners. He said, "It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defense against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property."[/FONT]

From an article written by Prof. Walter Williams.

The Founders worried about how to keep their slaves in line, too.

 

[hortysir]

Certainly worthy of discussion.

Personally I would fund the Federal Government by a single VOLUNTARY per capita tax of $10K (in2010 dollars) on every legal resident over the age of 21 plus a series of excise taxes on non-necessities. Federal Voting Rights (and eligibility for elective public office) would extend only to those with a history of paying the tax for three consecutive years. No employee of any federal agency would be eligible to either pay the tax or cast a vote. Neither would any person receiving a subsidy in any form from the Feds with the exception of a national dividend paid to ALL legal residents in an equal amount. The House of Representatives would be apportioned so as to have each district represent an approximately equal number of tax payers.

No corporate person would be permitted to donate to any federal election, nor to communicate privately to any federal office holder or employee by any means whatsoever. The ONLY contributions to a federal office seeker allowed would be from constituents with all such being fully public information.

No elected public official would receive compensation in any form whatsoever.

*edit*
So military can't vote????





Apologies, ya'll

This was the post I had in mind that I wrongly called the OP