Should voting rights be changed?

i wonder how many know when to use their, there, and they're. :eusa_think: 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?
i wonder. :eusa_think: captain suffrage-shrinker has certainly botched the vernacular trying to make a case for disenfranchising americans on the basis of what they know. such irony:doubt:.
 
Ah, so this is finally the great counterrevolution to great revolution(s) of mankind that leveled the playing field (at least somewhat) between the wealthy and the unwealthy, centuries ago, when the principles of democracies spread across the planet?

The rich sure are funny people.
 
[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.

Most people with less than 100,000 in taxable income would not get an extra vote.

Oh, and btw, in order to implement this you'd have to amend the Constitution, and in that process,

all these people you're trying to oppress and disenfranchise would still be voting.

Good luck.
 
Is there any chance we can get the GOP to put this plan in their party platform?:lol:

You know, I wish I'd kept a list of all the ideas conservatives have tossed out in places like USMB that I have so wanted the GOP to adopt as a platform plank.
 
Ah, so this is finally the great counterrevolution to great revolution(s) of mankind that leveled the playing field (at least somewhat) between the wealthy and the unwealthy, centuries ago, when the principles of democracies spread across the planet?

The rich sure are funny people.
i wouldn't pin this on the rich, per sa. this has all the hallmarks of those who suck the rich's dick, is how i see it.
 
Here's a different approach, one that perhaps the obscenely wealthy and their tools will find this more to their liking.

How about paying people NOT to vote?

Registered voters show up on election day, and they can, should they choose, recieve a check for NOT voting?

How much money would it take for YOU to give up YOUR vote?

Some of you guys want to get the poor out of the electorial process, right?

And you can't legally bribe people to vote you way, right?

Well this solves that problem, I suspect.

A thousand dollars (or some sum, who knows?) paid at the voting booth for NOT voting on election day would probably tempt millions and millions of po folk and millions upon millions of middle class people, too.
 
The solution is smaller government and less government control of our lives.

This is a shocking statement from someone like you.

As to the OP topoc: Changing voting rights will disenfranchise one group while giving way to much power to others. Just think if only those who served in the military could vote. We would have an even larger military industrial complex, take over the planet & be like Castro's Cuba or Hitler's Germany. Can you imagine the police state we would be in.

Similarly if only the rich could vote we would have a vivid & wide gap between rich & poor with no middle class. No chance for people to change their status.

The only thing I would want to require of a voter is that they be informed. If there were classes that voters could go to & test they could take so they knew which way their reps voted on laws instead of what their TV ads say they support. If voters passed the class or test their vote would count 1.2 while everyone else's would count 1. This would at least give people the incentive to be informed & reduce the influence of big money campaign ads.
 
Here's a different approach, one that perhaps the obscenely wealthy and their tools will find this more to their liking.

How about paying people NOT to vote?

Registered voters show up on election day, and they can, should they choose, recieve a check for NOT voting?

How much money would it take for YOU to give up YOUR vote?

Some of you guys want to get the poor out of the electorial process, right?

And you can't legally bribe people to vote you way, right?

Well this solves that problem, I suspect.

A thousand dollars (or some sum, who knows?) paid at the voting booth for NOT voting on election day would probably tempt millions and millions of po folk and millions upon millions of middle class people, too.

:rofl: i like your style.
 
Ah, so this is finally the great counterrevolution to great revolution(s) of mankind that leveled the playing field (at least somewhat) between the wealthy and the unwealthy, centuries ago, when the principles of democracies spread across the planet?

The rich sure are funny people.
i wouldn't pin this on the rich, per sa. this has all the hallmarks of those who suck the rich's dick, is how i see it.

Yes, the rich have a well-oiled propaganda machine working for them. Guys like Limbaugh, with their talent for convincing Joe Sixpacks making 40 grand a year that voting in billionaire Limbaugh's interests is somehow voting in their own interests.
 
Obama got elected partly because the Negros voted en mass for him and they mostly all voted. Not whitey. Oh no, whitey sat on his bloated backside, drinking cheap beer, he couldn't be bothered voting cause a Negro will never win. HA ! Welcome to the real world whitey. The Negro is now YOUR president and that drives most of you NUTS.

Make whitey vote, fine him the price of a case of cheap beer if he doesn't vote. The GOP will love it because most red neck, ignorant whitey people in the USA are Conservatives.
 
Last edited:
[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.

Voting should have nothing to do with how much money you make. Good Lord, way to make the country into a pure oligarchy.

That said, I do think at the time of the registration process, a quick four or five question simple civics test should be given to see if a person really understands the hierarchy and purpose of the levels of government. If they fail one test, they could be given a different one until they pass. That way, at least some basic information will be planted so that people don't have the impression that just by "voting," any dramatic change in their personal lifestyle is apt to happen overnight.
 
[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]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.

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.

Just type in the name, copy a few of the quoted words of substance into Google and it will pop right up.
 
That said, I do think at the time of the registration process, a quick four or five question simple civics test should be given to see if a person really understands the hierarchy and purpose of the levels of government. If they fail one test, they could be given a different one until they pass. That way, at least some basic information will be planted so that people don't have the impression that just by "voting," any dramatic change in their personal lifestyle is apt to happen overnight.

They tried that one time. It turns out some of the poll workers were racist.
 
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?

:eusa_shhh::eusa_think:

I've always thought you people liked to interpret the Constitution to fit your own agendas, and that's a fine example. What do you suppose this means?

Article XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
 
Maggie,

Conservatives interpret every document of importance to suit their agenda. Take the Bible:

DIVORCE is forbidden in the Bible but OK for Conservatives.

ABORTION is not even spoke of in the Bible yet Conservatives claim GOD opposes it.

USERY is forbidden in the Bible but Conservatives have no problem charging people high interest rates.

MURDER is forbidden in the Bible but state sanctioned murder as punishement is OK with Conservatives.

These are just a few examples of why we Liberals spell Conservative - H Y P O C R I T E
 
Here we see the thought process and the motivation of Conservative "pundits". Consolidate wealth, consolidate power, screw the middle class in the workplace and the ballot box.
How can anyone working hard to make a living support such an ideology?
And then the opposite of that is people on the lower end of the economy voting themselves ever larger benefits from government paid for by those that pay the most taxes.

The solution is smaller government and less government control of our lives.

Like many of their claims, the conservative claim that the poor will vote themselves "ever larger benefits from govt" has been disproven by reality.

In spite of the many economically challenging times this nation (and others) have experienced (ex Great Depression, the recent credit crisis, etc) the poor have NEVER done this.

But since conservatives don't need no steenkin facts, they will continue to believe the inevitability of a trend that has never occurred in the past. Never
 
Plutocracy? That's your answer? The people on top when the system started would do anything to keep many others from joining them and they'd have the power to do it. You have to realize that like marxism and libertarianism, that system would require a fundamental change in human nature to work. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 

Forum List

Back
Top