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

[EGR one]

No answer yet huh?

got it.

I'm still trying to figure out what you meant by "less people".

My current working theory is that you meant "fewer" people, but lack the education necessary to know the difference.

Maybe its your thing to play stupid or maybe you are actually an expert --

So I will walk thru the topic again

Do you want more people or the opposite of more people?

Last I checked, the opposite of more is usually less -- if saying fewer makes you moist, go with that...

I believe that the obvious answer is that you would want more people voting in your political favor, and fewer voting in opposition. Personally, I would like fewer voters who get their political news from the comedy shows on TV.

It is also obvious that fewer voters means that your vote carries more political weight. .

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

No answer yet huh?

got it.

I'm still trying to figure out what you meant by "less people".

My current working theory is that you meant "fewer" people, but lack the education necessary to know the difference.

Maybe its your thing to play stupid or maybe you are actually an expert --

So I will walk thru the topic again

Do you want more people or the opposite of more people?

Last I checked, the opposite of more is usually less -- if saying fewer makes you moist, go with that...

I believe that the obvious answer is that you would want more people voting in your political favor, and fewer voting in opposition. Personally, I would like fewer voters who get their political news from the comedy shows on TV.

It is also obvious that fewer voters means that your vote carries more political weight. .

Like this comedy show?

How 9/11 First Responders and Jon Stewart Successfully Pressured Congress

What did you have against a comedy show helping first responders get what this country owed them?

 

[there4eyeM]

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..

Just remember that America's wars are fought by those people's sons. They pay a lot to keep the rich.

 

[EGR one]

No answer yet huh?

got it.

I'm still trying to figure out what you meant by "less people".

My current working theory is that you meant "fewer" people, but lack the education necessary to know the difference.

Maybe its your thing to play stupid or maybe you are actually an expert --

So I will walk thru the topic again

Do you want more people or the opposite of more people?

Last I checked, the opposite of more is usually less -- if saying fewer makes you moist, go with that...

I believe that the obvious answer is that you would want more people voting in your political favor, and fewer voting in opposition. Personally, I would like fewer voters who get their political news from the comedy shows on TV.

It is also obvious that fewer voters means that your vote carries more political weight. .

Like this comedy show?

How 9/11 First Responders and Jon Stewart Successfully Pressured Congress

What did you have against a comedy show helping first responders get what this country owed them?

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not opposed to comedy shows or Jon Stewart, nor would I ever advocate that they avoid politics. My expressed concern was about those viewers who get all, or a majority, of their news from such shows. Ignorance comes in many forms.

 

[g5000]

America is fucking stupid

You mean deplorable.

 

[Darkwind]

So, to turn this around.

Is the OP in favor of more voters who are on government assistance vs fewer voters?

Should those who make significant amounts of money be prevented from voting?

 

[Dana7360]

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?

That's very easy.

Registered democrats out number registered republicans in America.

Republicans don't have a platform that is appealing to the majority of this nation.

The more people vote the less likely it is for a republican to win an election. They have known this since the 90s and have actively worked to prevent millions of people from voting. Through many different ways. Including discouraging people from voting with ads that slander and scare people. Think the first bush and his racist ads in 1988. Think the child sex ring out of the pizza restaurant that Hillary was supposed to be running in 2016. That one actually caused harm. Some idiot bought the lie, took his AR 15 to that restaurant and shot up the place looking for that child sex ring. Or think gerrymandering states so badly that people don't vote because they know their vote is meaningless.

I don't know how people can fall for the lies, slander and manipulations by republicans and their media but they do. The only thing I can think of is that it's very easy to manipulate and lie to uneducated people who are filled with hate.

 

[fncceo]

Robert Heinlen’s classic sci-fi book, ‘Starship Troopers’ (1951), is set in a world where only veterans are allowed to vote.

The reasoning is that only those who demonstrate a willingness to protect the country should have a say in its governance.

 

[g5000]

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

For the first 30 or 40 years of the federal income tax, only the top one percent paid that tax.

But everyone voted.

 

[g5000]

Universal suffrage is one of the things which made America exceptional.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

No answer yet huh?

got it.

I'm still trying to figure out what you meant by "less people".

My current working theory is that you meant "fewer" people, but lack the education necessary to know the difference.

Maybe its your thing to play stupid or maybe you are actually an expert --

So I will walk thru the topic again

Do you want more people or the opposite of more people?

Last I checked, the opposite of more is usually less -- if saying fewer makes you moist, go with that...

I believe that the obvious answer is that you would want more people voting in your political favor, and fewer voting in opposition. Personally, I would like fewer voters who get their political news from the comedy shows on TV.

It is also obvious that fewer voters means that your vote carries more political weight. .

Like this comedy show?

How 9/11 First Responders and Jon Stewart Successfully Pressured Congress

What did you have against a comedy show helping first responders get what this country owed them?

What we have here is a failure to communicate. I am not opposed to comedy shows or Jon Stewart, nor would I ever advocate that they avoid politics. My expressed concern was about those viewers who get all, or a majority, of their news from such shows. Ignorance comes in many forms.

First...what government agency is going to make sure those people won't get to vote?

Second, how would they know who is watching what?

Third, you are not a small government guy are you?

 

[g5000]

What are we to say to the men who profess the most flaming zeal for republican government, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of it; who pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity of the people to choose their own rulers, yet maintain that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly betray the trust committed to them? Were the objection to be read by one who had not seen the mode prescribed by the Constitution for the choice of representatives, he could suppose nothing less than that some unreasonable qualification of property was annexed to the right of suffrage; or that the right of eligibility was limited to persons of particular families or fortunes; or at least that the mode prescribed by the State constitutions was in some respect or other, very grossly departed from. We have seen how far such a supposition would err, as to the two first points. Nor would it, in fact, be less erroneous as to the last. - Federalist 57

 

[g5000]

I apologize for my last post being longer than a tweet or Fox News talking point.

 

[g5000]

To continue...


The only difference discoverable between the two cases is, that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens; whilst in the individual States, the election of a representative is left to about as many hundreds. Will it be pretended that this difference is sufficient to justify an attachment to the State governments, and an abhorrence to the federal government? If this be the point on which the objection turns, it deserves to be examined. Is it supported by REASON? This cannot be said, without maintaining that five or six thousand citizens are less capable of choosing a fit representative, or more liable to be corrupted by an unfit one, than five or six hundred. Reason, on the contrary, assures us, that as in so great a number a fit representative would be most likely to be found, so the choice would be less likely to be diverted from him by the intrigues of the ambitious or the ambitious or the bribes of the rich. Is the CONSEQUENCE from this doctrine admissible? If we say that five or six hundred citizens are as many as can jointly exercise their right of suffrage, must we not deprive the people of the immediate choice of their public servants, in every instance where the administration of the government does not require as many of them as will amount to one for that number of citizens? Is the doctrine warranted by FACTS? It was shown in the last paper, that the real representation in the British House of Commons very little exceeds the proportion of one for every thirty thousand inhabitants. Besides a variety of powerful causes not existing here, and which favor in that country the pretensions of rank and wealth, no person is eligible as a representative of a county, unless he possess real estate of the clear value of six hundred pounds sterling per year; nor of a city or borough, unless he possess a like estate of half that annual value.

To this qualification on the part of the county representatives is added another on the part of the county electors, which restrains the right of suffrage to persons having a freehold estate of the annual value of more than twenty pounds sterling, according to the present rate of money. Notwithstanding these unfavorable circumstances, and notwithstanding some very unequal laws in the British code, it cannot be said that the representatives of the nation have elevated the few on the ruins of the many. But we need not resort to foreign experience on this subject. Our own is explicit and decisive. The districts in New Hampshire in which the senators are chosen immediately by the people, are nearly as large as will be necessary for her representatives in the Congress. Those of Massachusetts are larger than will be necessary for that purpose; and those of New York still more so. In the last State the members of Assembly for the cities and counties of New York and Albany are elected by very nearly as many voters as will be entitled to a representative in the Congress, calculating on the number of sixty-five representatives only. It makes no difference that in these senatorial districts and counties a number of representatives are voted for by each elector at the same time. If the same electors at the same time are capable of choosing four or five representatives, they cannot be incapable of choosing one.

Pennsylvania is an additional example. Some of her counties, which elect her State representatives, are almost as large as her districts will be by which her federal representatives will be elected. The city of Philadelphia is supposed to contain between fifty and sixty thousand souls. It will therefore form nearly two districts for the choice of federal representatives. It forms, however, but one county, in which every elector votes for each of its representatives in the State legislature. And what may appear to be still more directly to our purpose, the whole city actually elects a SINGLE MEMBER for the executive council. This is the case in all the other counties of the State. Are not these facts the most satisfactory proofs of the fallacy which has been employed against the branch of the federal government under consideration? Has it appeared on trial that the senators of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, or the executive council of Pennsylvania, or the members of the Assembly in the two last States, have betrayed any peculiar disposition to sacrifice the many to the few, or are in any respect less worthy of their places than the representatives and magistrates appointed in other States by very small divisions of the people? But there are cases of a stronger complexion than any which I have yet quoted. One branch of the legislature of Connecticut is so constituted that each member of it is elected by the whole State. So is the governor of that State, of Massachusetts, and of this State, and the president of New Hampshire. I leave every man to decide whether the result of any one of these experiments can be said to countenance a suspicion, that a diffusive mode of choosing representatives of the people tends to elevate traitors and to undermine the public liberty.

 

[g5000]

If you have half a brain, it should only take a few seconds of actual THOUGHT to figure out why it is a very bad idea to only allow people of means to vote.

If you are stumped, there are always our brilliant Founders from whom you can seek wisdom.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you have half a brain, it should only take a few seconds of actual THOUGHT to figure out why it is a very bad idea to only allow people of means to vote.

If you are stumped, there are always our brilliant Founders from whom you can seek wisdom.

I don't want only those with means to vote. I want only those who actually pay taxes to vote (including rich motherfuckers who take advantage of tax expenditures).

 

[Dana7360]

Allowing women to vote was a mistake.

Too bad.

We vote and we out number you.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Allowing women to vote was a mistake.

Too bad.

We vote and we out number you.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

We are.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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 right is absolute; isn't that the mantra of your ilk?

Besides, only those government say should vote should be allowed to vote. Our rights come from government, isn't that right?

Everyone should be able to vote.

Felony free American citizens should be able to vote. That's it.

 

[Dana7360]

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?

I thought that you conservatives and trump have declared full employment.

I have read a ton of posts from conservatives touting the low unemployment rate.

Why are you whining about someone on public assistance when according to conservatives like you and trump we're at full employment and record low unemployment?

If we have that full employment and record unemployment there aren't many on public assistance.

So which lie do you want to go with?

Either there's people sponging off tax payers or we have full employment and record low unemployment.

You can't have both.