Forum Home | Login

russellmz

Join Date 03/2003

Universal Suffrage

A Good Idea

While reading over some Joeuser articles I noticed that there was a surprising lack of support for universal suffrage. In the comments section I listed my opinion that universal suffrage is necessary. I went on a soapbox a couple times and wrote a bit on my beliefs.

The social evolution of the United States voting requirements changed through the centuries. Requirements were at first, only white male landowners, then white males, then women and blacks, finally the United States' proud achievement of the 26th Amendment. To me, this idea made sense and like the abolishment of slavery, need not be defended in modern times.

But in the comments section there was actually support for limiting voting rights. I was astounded. To be honest, I could barely write a coherent argument and had to spend a bit of time and thought in formulating my responses. After making a few comments, I decided to list why I thought universal suffrage was good. Some of the below reasons are specific to some arguments and do not apply to all arguments against the present universal suffrage in America. The arguments consisted in taking away the right to vote from a non-majority of voters, and NOT a racial group. When I write "minority" below I mean it as a percentage.

1. A minority without a vote is vulnerable
Without the right to vote a minority has no voice. With no reason to protect or coddle them for votes, politicians are free to scapegoat and mistreat the minority group. They can take away from the non-voting minority without a fight and give to the voting members.

The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court were mentioned as protection for the non-voting population. But with a minority with no vote, a President can eventually be nominate judges that are friendly to the voting majority. Congress can amend the Bill of Rights to suit the needs of the voting population. With no vote, the minority can do nothing to stop it.

2. The minority's right to vote is taken away for what they might do
One of the reasons for removing the right to vote for some is that if they paid no taxes, they should have no say in how it is spent. In other words, a large number of non-taxpayers can say that taxpayer money be spent on social programs to benefit non-taxpayers. This seems fair. Afterall, why should they get a say when they didn't contribute?

But what if some of the minority agreed and would vote down social programs? These people are punished because they might have done the "wrong" thing.

People vote about stuff they don't have to pay the price for all the time. In a war, should only soldiers be allowed to vote as they are the ones who will be "paying" with their lives? Should only the rich vote on mortage tax rates? The young on Social Security and Medicare?

3. Universal suffrage prevents violence.
This is one of many subjects where I have little expertise and my argument is conjecture and theory. But one of the most amazing things about the United States is the relatively low level of domestic terrorism. (Not to be confused with terrorism from outside groups like Al Queda) Domestic terrorism is often an outbreak of frustration due to inability of getting a point of view across. Countries with a free press, voting rights, and freedom of speech allow fringe groups to speak their mind. Without it, they turn to violence to get their message out. Expect violence to happen as angry non-voters lash out.

4. Cutting a voter base increases the power of extremists.
I made a graph in MS Paint. Isn't it pretty? Again, personal theory and conjecture.

The above demonstrates how cutting a voter base can increase extremistism. With a large voter base (A), extremists on both sides help cancel each other out, like a solution of water with both bleach and sulfuric acid in it. In fact, the number of blue and red extremists seems to be small to begin with at 10% each. But suppose the blue 40% of the eligible population is denied their right to vote ( leaving only the 60% red population. Now the percentage of extremists in the red population has remained the same, but if there is an even split among the red on some related decision, the red extremists make up one-third of the opposition!

Not only that, but extremists are more likely to vote than half-hearted supporters. They are more powerful and politicians are more likely to listen to them. And there is no blue counter-balance to keep them in check. Oh, they can scream and yell, but no one cares since they can't vote.

5. Arbitrary Limits (stole this one from someone else in the comments of the linked article)
The suggestions for limiting the right to vote included taxes paid and intelligence. For some the reason seemed arbitrary. Why taxes paid? In fact, why only "x" amount and not x-$100? I remember reading of a white landowner's arguing for removing the landownership requirement. He said that if through some freak of nature, a disaster would cause him to lose everything, he would lose the right to vote. But since he was the same man that he was before the disaster, why is it he could not vote?

6. It is wrong to place a group of people at the mercy of another group of people.
Related to #1. This is just a belief. I do not think a group of people should have to depend on the kindness of strangers for their rights. It can only lead to trouble. It is easy to say, "We won't do anything bad" or "Trust us", but the reason the right to vote has been so sought after, fought for so much, is that it allows a person or a people to have a chance, to protect themselves and to effect change.

(edited to fix the pic and some small math/concept errors)

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

excellent post.

I totally agree with you that universal suffrage should never be removed. It is the one factor in a democracy that ensures equality.

That said there are strong arguments for reducing the influence of non tax-payers on spending priorities. I firmly believe that such influence should be reduced by reducing the number of non tax-payers, hence fixing the problem itself.

Paul.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Great post.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Good post but you don't resolve the basic problem:

Over half the population pays hardly any of the tax burden but, because they're the majority, get to decide what is done with taxes.

You want to talk about a minority without a vote? How about the top 10% who basically have no say about how tax money is spent even though they're the ones paying almost all of it?

There is a basic contradiction to your position. You say that people shouldn't have their rights at the mercy of others. That's precisely how it is now. Money IS a form of property. And the ones who are paying virtually all the government's bills are at the mercy of those who are paying none or hardly any of the bills.

Why should Joe Rich guy be forced to pay for Paul Poor Guy's food?

The system as we have it isn't a matter of where we all pay for things we don't use. It's set up so that a tiny minority is stuck paying for the whims of the majority who pay virtually nothing in taxes.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Why should Joe Rich guy be forced to pay for Paul Poor Guy's food? "--Draginol

Well, the first thing that pops into my mind is that if you are trying to get something (money or anything else), do you go to the guy with very little of it or to the guy with a whole bunch of it? A very small percentage of the population control almost all of the wealth, so where else is it going to come from if not the people who have the bulk of the resources in this country?

How about this, get rid of the minimum wage and institute a living wage. That way more people will have more money and be able to pay more in taxes.

And poor old Joe Rich guy can stop feeling victimized.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

No, that's not the "first thing". The first thing is to decide what needs to be done and THEN figure out where the money is coming from.

If the 60% or so of the population that pays little or no federal taxes got together, they could vote in politicians that provided nice houses with pools to everyone. The people who would be paying for that, the top 10%, would have little say on the matter even though they're paying for it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

thanks for the kind comments Solitair and abe and draginol (edit: sorry, forgot to add your name first time around).

posted by draginol:
--------------
"If the 60% or so of the population that pays little or no federal taxes got together, they could vote in politicians that provided nice houses with pools to everyone. The people who would be paying for that, the top 10%, would have little say on the matter even though they're paying for it."
--------------

posted by solitair:
-------
That said there are strong arguments for reducing the influence of non tax-payers on spending priorities.
-------

again, some are saying that their current right to vote which they already have should be limited because of what they MIGHT do. what about during times of war: the majority of people dying would not be in the top 10% of tax payers. since they are not "paying" the ultimate price, should only soldiers be able to vote?

otherwise if the 95+% or so of the population that are not soldiers got together, they could vote in politicians that provided profitable empire-building wars of aggression. the people who would be paying for that, the soldiers (much less than 5%), would have little say on the matter even though they're "paying" for it.

you can insert non retired people and social security/medicare.

posted by draginol:
---------
You want to talk about a minority without a vote? How about the top 10% who basically have no say about how tax money is spent even though they're the ones paying almost all of it?
---------

first off they do have the right to vote. they are more likely to vote than poor voters. as they are in the top 10% of taxpayers they also have a better opportunity to advertise their beliefs, and to advocate why their position is better. i am hazarding a guess they contribute more money to political causes than the poor. they are more likely to be in direct contact with politicians. the top 10% are (by some people's opinions) an influential minority in america, as opposed to "at the mercy of others". even minority populations that aren't the top 10% can still be a major pain in the butt for the majority.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

With campaign finance "reform" (somethign the left really loves) teh ability of the top 10% to influence elections is reduced.

I agree with you in terms of dealing with war and other non-tax issues. But I do think we need to do soemthing so that the bottom 90% of the tax base can't "vote in" a free party for themselves that the top 10% are forced to pay for.

The problem is, 75% of the budget is spent either on entitlements or interest on the debt for paying for those entitlements. Only 15% of the budget goes to defense with the last 10% going for pensions (fed employees, veterans, etc.), interstate highways, and discretionary spending.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"No, that's not the "first thing". The first thing is to decide..."--Draginol

Small clarification, I was not advocating that anything be done "first". I was merely saying what first poped into my mind when I read that sentence of yours which I quoted.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Ah ok.

I know: How about those who serve (and their adult dependents) can vote along with those who file federal tax payments.

And everyone can still vote for state since everyone pays state taxes in most states (sales tax).

Successfully updated karma reason!

This article is utter crap. There has always been qualifiers on who can vote and rightfully so. The constitution provides the guarantees for the disenfranchised minorities.The founders were wise in making the constitution difficult to ammend to avoid the unchecked passion of the majority to strip the rights of the minorities.
Does Joe advocate granting crimminals universal sufferage?

As for the taxpayer versus tax consumer issue can someone point out to me the marxist clauses in the constitution? The constitution guarantees equality under the law not equality of outcomes. A person who pays little or no taxes has proportionaly far greater vote than someone who is a maximum rate taxpayer. Votes ar not weighted by the amount of taxes someone pays. Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect the neo-comm's posting here either pay very little if any in income taxes.

Far from universal suffrage what his country needs is some restrictions in suffrage.
Those restrictions should be a ban on all convicted criminals until full completion of sentence and and payment of fines and restitutions. A ban on non english speakers ( except for Puerto Ricans on the island of Puerto Rico). If you cannot speak or read in english you cannot possibly be sufficently informed enough to make an informed considered vote. Same for literacy,if you cannot read you cannot possibly be informed enough to know what your voting for let alone be able to properly cast a vote.

Taxes: either institute a head tax (everyone pays an equal share) in which case the issue is muted. Why not? If your a home owner you pay a property tax based on property values not on your ability to pay. If we accept that premise for property taxes why not for the federal general fund? The theory of our government is that everyone benefits equally why shouldn't everyone pay equally?
As long as we accept a discriminatory income tax scheme - a progressive tax scheme,we should restrict non-taxpayers or net tax consumers voting rights. Why should they be more equal than others? Restrict their votes to electing senators and the president but not for the house of representatives (where all spending matters originate) and the same at the state level, govenor and state senators but not state house representatives.
The preamble of the constitution, the statement of purpose, states that the present federal government was founded " to form a more perfect union, to provide for the common defense" is rather clear in it's meaning. The government was founded to provide a single unitary nation state and the means to provide the defense of the nation state. It was not founded to provide welfare, social security, medicare or medicaid, student loans and grants, farm subsidies and the myriad other spending it presently does. The only spending required by the constitution is national defense and the core functions such as the courts, law enforcement and interstate matters, all other spending is optional. It is no coincidence that the explosion in both the size of government and it's cost has only come about since the inception of the progressive income tax and the expansion of sufferage to those who play but do not pay. One can argue whether this spending is justified or not, but one cannot in good concious argue that those who do not pay should have the right to take by force of law what is not theirs to take, namely the legally aquired assets of others to give themselves benefits that the constituition does not require. That should only be decided by net tax contributors and then only as a grant that can be recinded and not as an entitlement.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Those restrictions should be a ban on all convicted criminals until full completion of sentence and and payment of fines and restitutions."--cubanbob

What do you mean by ban? Do you mean not allowed to vote? This is already true if you are convicted of a felony. Are you suggesting that this be true for misdemeanors?

"If you cannot speak or read in english you cannot possibly be sufficently informed enough to make an informed considered vote. Same for literacy,if you cannot read you cannot possibly be informed enough to know what your voting for let alone be able to properly cast a vote."--cubanbob

Why stop there? Obviously plenty of people who do speak English and who are literate are also incapable of making an "informed decision". So what is needed to make an "informed decision"? Education? Sounds good to me. A four year degree should be a requirement. Intelligence? Of course! I would say an IQ of 120 or better should be required. But are these requirements truely sufficient to make an "informed decision"? Not really. What about wisdom? Emotional intelligence? Specific education in political science and philisophy? I should certainly hope so!

Successfully updated karma reason!

cubanbob Posted: Sunday, October 19, 2003
------------------
This article is utter crap.
------------------

charming. it's great that there are reasonable people willing to bring up the level of debate in this world.

------------------
There has always been qualifiers on who can vote and rightfully so.
-------------------

right...hence the comments about the requirements of male landowners, then all males, then women, then the 26th amendment, etc.

-------------------
Does Joe advocate granting crimminals universal sufferage?
-------------------

joe? who are you talking about? me? draginol? the fictional joe rich? if me, then no. if you fail to uphold your responsibilities as a citizen you should definitely lose your rights. whether to reinstate voting rights after prison is a whole other subject. i also did not mention whether i think 5-year olds should be able to vote. the answer there is "no".

-------------------
As for the taxpayer versus tax consumer issue can someone point out to me the marxist clauses in the constitution?
-------------------

?

-------------------
A person who pays little or no taxes has proportionaly far greater vote than someone who is a maximum rate taxpayer.
-------------------

huh? one little taxpayer vote = 1 vote. one rich taxpayer = 1 vote. are you saying that there are more no/little tax paying voters? yes, that is correct.

-------------------
Votes ar not weighted by the amount of taxes someone pays. Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect the neo-comm's posting here either pay very little if any in income taxes.
-------------------

again, one vote = one vote no matter who places it, yes. if you mean "neo-communists", i have no idea how much they make or even who are the "neo-communists" here.

-------------------
Far from universal suffrage what his country needs is some restrictions in suffrage.
Those restrictions should be a ban on all convicted criminals until full completion of sentence and and payment of fines and restitutions.
-------------------

sounds reasonable. according to an article i just googled up now only 3 states allow prisoners to unrestricted votes. (Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont).

-------------------
A ban on non english speakers ( except for Puerto Ricans on the island of Puerto Rico). If you cannot speak or read in english you cannot possibly be sufficently informed enough to make an informed considered vote.
-------------------

there are many foreign language newspapers and programs in america. i have no idea why you think "you cannot possibly be sufficiently informed". my parents read a chinese newspaper every week that seems as reasonably informative as most us newspapers, every saturday night they watch some chinese news show. (they both speak english as a second language but obviously understand chinese much better) how do you cover those who can speak and comprehend spoken english but are not so great at reading and writing? probably a lot of english speaking voters don't read papers or in-depth articles, how do you know they are sufficiently informed?

besides, being sufficiently informed is hardly a qualification to vote. at least a fraction of 1% of those voting in the 2000 election could not describe the difference between the democrats and republicans, and they were hardly concentrated among the lower income classes, and in fact seemed almost proud of their lack of knowledge of politics. there are some voters who just vote all republicans or all democrats. should all voters be subject to a basic knowledge test? "name the branches of the government". "name at least two candidates running". "who is the president?" "briefly describe the earned income credit and the reason you oppose or support it".

how will the language ban be enforced? a written test in person for everyone who registers?

--------------------
Same for literacy,if you cannot read you cannot possibly be informed enough to know what your voting for let alone be able to properly cast a vote.
--------------------

they can still be informed: c-span, friends, neighbors, radio, news programs, etc. not as good as print articles, but there are probably a lot of literate voters who don't read papers or in-depth articles. and again, how is the testing being done? in person while registering? "please diagram the following sentence". "conjegate the following verbs". "identify the gerund in the following sentence: 'cripes, my whizzing myself in fear over that last question almost happened'". (bonus points to the first who answers the question right)

--------------------
Taxes: either institute a head tax (everyone pays an equal share) in which case the issue is muted. Why not? If your a home owner you pay a property tax based on property values not on your ability to pay. If we accept that premise for property taxes why not for the federal general fund?
--------------------

theoretically, if you are a property owner, you have a decent job, and are budgeting to account for the fact you have to pay taxes, and are not poor. plus, since you own property you are likely not paying rent to someone else? (i am making some assumptions here as to why)

--------------------
The theory of our government is that everyone benefits equally why shouldn't everyone pay equally?
As long as we accept a discriminatory income tax scheme - a progressive tax scheme,we should restrict non-taxpayers or net tax consumers voting rights.
--------------------

income tax is progressive. but there are some articles that claim that when regressive social security, fica, state, and local taxes are factored in, "some analysts say total taxes as a percentage of income are about the same for all income levels". (second to last sentence in article) i tried to find the article i read where it listed it out as the the tax levels being something like ?16%, ?17%, and ?19% but couldn't find it.

this link has a guy named jason who listed some numbers and examples. not sure if they're right since i couldn't find the article.

anyway: why is the progressive income tax attacked but regressive taxes almost never mentioned? heck, make a pitch that the progressive income tax gets fixed along with the regressive taxes and you might make headway among most americans. oh, and don't make your spokesman some billionaire who will save millions of dollars under a flat tax. just seems a little convenient to most americans when that happens.

--------------------
Why should they be more equal than others? Restrict their votes to electing senators and the president but not for the house of representatives (where all spending matters originate) and the same at the state level, govenor and state senators but not state house representatives.
--------------------

the house of representatives does more than allocate spending. to mix up the example i gave above, do you think in times of war only soldiers should be allowed to vote? they have to "pay" the price of war. and the possiblity of any of the top 10% being a soldier is probably less than any other group, but they will probably have many foreign investments to protect. so should the top 10% votes be taken away since they are getting more property protection at the cost of soldiers' lives who are not part of the top 10%?

man that took a long time to respond to!

Reply By: Draginol Posted: Sunday, October 19, 2003
---------------------
With campaign finance "reform" (somethign the left really loves) teh ability of the top 10% to influence elections is reduced.
---------------------

so their money, their contacts, and their greater ability to advertise and advocate their positions are not influential in the political process?

---------------------
I agree with you in terms of dealing with war and other non-tax issues. But I do think we need to do soemthing so that the bottom 90% of the tax base can't "vote in" a free party for themselves that the top 10% are forced to pay for.
---------------------

why do we trust that 95% of the population will not vote in wars to get a free 51st state to play in that soldiers are forced to "pay" for in blood?

---------------------
The problem is, 75% of the budget is spent either on entitlements or interest on the debt for paying for those entitlements. Only 15% of the budget goes to defense with the last 10% going for pensions (fed employees, veterans, etc.), interstate highways, and discretionary spending.
---------------------

i am pretty sure social security tends to be a regressive tax. debt interest can hardly be blamed on just free stuff for the bottom 90%. i am pretty sure the outcry against tax cuts was pretty low among the top 10% as well. am i blaming the top 10% for causing debt with tax cuts? no, just not 0% their fault.

Reply By: Draginol Posted: Sunday, October 19, 2003
-----------------
I know: How about those who serve (and their adult dependents) can vote along with those who file federal tax payments.

And everyone can still vote for state since everyone pays state taxes in most states (sales tax).
-----------------

what about those who served, but retired before the war? if they have a jobless 18 year old kid can s/he vote?

what about those who were taxpayers but then crippled/sickened and unable to work? (cancer, parapalegic, etc)

priests: do they get a vote?
"Religious priests take a vow of poverty and are supported by their religious order. Any personal earnings are given to the order. Their vow of poverty is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, which exempts them from paying Federal income tax." source

whew i'm tired! hopefully everything will still look semi coherent when i hit submit...

Successfully updated karma reason!

my bad(s):

up above my response to draginol should read:

"so their money, their contacts, and their greater ability to advertise and advocate their positions are not still greatly influential in the political process?"

and

"if they have a jobless 18 year old kid can s/he vote?" should be gone since draginol says adult dependents can vote right there.

(i'm tired, cut me a break)

Successfully updated karma reason!

The gerund is whizzing.

I'll have my bonus points now

Successfully updated karma reason!

"What do you mean by ban? Do you mean not allowed to vote? This is already true if you are convicted of a felony. Are you suggesting that this be true for misdemeanors?" - Abe cubbage

Not in every state is a convict deprived of the right to vote. In others upon parole or granting of probation convicts can apply for and be granted restoration of their civil rights. Only a few like Florida require either a full pardon or full completion of sentence including payment of fines and restitution before one can apply for restoration of full civil rights. Since voting is a civic duty just like obeying the law, yes it too ought to apply to misdemeanors. Pay your traffic and parking fines and back taxes or fight them in court.

"Why stop there? Obviously plenty of people who do speak English and who are literate are also incapable of making an "informed decision". So what is needed to make an "informed decision"? Education? Sounds good to me. A four year degree should be a requirement. Intelligence? Of course! I would say an IQ of 120 or better should be required. But are these requirements truely sufficient to make an "informed decision"? Not really. What about wisdom? Emotional intelligence? Specific education in political science and philisophy? I should certainly hope so!" - Abe cubbage

Quite true,wisdom and common sense are not directly directly proportional to IQ. The radical left is proof positive of that. As for english only ballots and minimum literacy requirements unlike India, where ballots are cast using party symbols (one puts a thumbprint next to the party symbol of one's choice) here in the US one has to able able to read the ballot in order to choose what to vote for. Do you think it is too much to ask that a voter be actually capable of understanding what he is reading? Although english is not the official language of the US (in my opinion it should be) those who advocate a polyglot of languages on ballots ought to consider the fact that all translations are not always fully accurate and identical in meaning to the english language ballot.being bi-lingual I have seen ballots in both spanish and english that are not exactly identical in meaning in both languages. Hence the possibility that the non-english language voter may not be voting on the precise issue as his english language counterpart.
Another point regarding english language voting is that the constitution besides being a charter for our basic inate rights and a blueprint for organinzing the government is also a statement of purpose. That is to form a more perfect union and that requires in a part a common culture which in turn requires a common language to establish a common national frame of reference. Few things in life are so complex that it would require a very high IQ to understand it. It would appear you are confusing simple with easy. Most choices in life are fairly simple if not usually easy. Hence voting for the lesser of the two evils. Having a normal IQ and being able to read at a tenth grade level coupled with common sense and life experience is more than sufficent qualifacation for an electorate. Indeed an electorate composed of garbagemen and truck drivers is by and large preferable to the over "educated" nonsense of a large proportion of the so-called elites in this country.

Do you and russellmz2 believe that there should be no restrictions or qualifactions on the right to vote? Should minors, the profoundly retarded,criminals illegal aliens the legaly insane as well as the comatose and dead also should have the right to vote? Indeed should everyone on the planet also be allowed to vote in American national elections? Should any and all restrictions on universal sufferage be lifted?

Successfully updated karma reason!

russellmz2: a few points to consider. I am also an immigrant. My parents and grandparents while not as fluent in english as in spanish made it a point to be functionaly literate in english to read newspapers and be able to understand to english language radio and television as well as spanish media. They made it a point to be able to read and understand an english language ballot.

What part of the fact that if all voters are equal at the ballot then the person who pays little or nothing has a proprtionaly greater vote than the person paying millions in taxes do you not understand?
Tell me again just what extra benefits a maximum rate taxpayer gets from the federal government that the average person gets? A special lane on the interstate? A response by the FBI when calling for a 911 call? I don't know how old you are but I remember when Carter was president paying income taxes at the 70% level. That my friend is called progrssive conmfiscation.
Social security a tax? You mean FDR and the democrats lied when they claimed that it is an old age insurance plan? That the government lies when I get my annual statement of future benefits from the social security administration. No friend it cannot be a tax, it must be an insurance premium. Just like a life insurance or disability plan.

"theoretically, if you are a property owner, you have a decent job, and are budgeting to account for the fact you have to pay taxes, and are not poor. plus, since you own property you are likely not paying rent to someone else? (i am making some assumptions here as to why)" You sure are. Ever heard of proposition 13 in California?
Unless your super wealthy and live modestly to your means, can anyone know what their earnings will be with absolute certainty 10 or 20 years in the future? At least with an income tax you what you will pay in any given year.

"the house of representatives does more than allocate spending. to mix up the example i gave above, do you think in times of war only soldiers should be allowed to vote? they have to "pay" the price of war. and the possiblity of any of the top 10% being a soldier is probably less than any other group, but they will probably have many foreign investments to protect. so should the top 10% votes be taken away since they are getting more property protection at the cost of soldiers' lives who are not part of the top 10%?" Just like the police and firemen, the military is a volunteer force. When you join you know the risk you take. Using your logic should cops and prison guards be the only ones who should vote on matters relating to law enforcement? I never stated that only those who pay taxes should be allowd to vote. I stated that taxpayers (net taxpayers) should have the right to vote for the house of representatives where all spending bills originate. Yes the house does allocate more than spending. But then again the president and the senate also have a say in allocating spending. Now tell me again why is it moral for one person to pay a thousand times more than another and still have the same vote.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Some very interesting points above.

Do people believe that voting is a right or a privledge?

If a right then it should never be taken away once given. Felons therefore should be allowed vote.

If a privledge then it should be earned and the privledge needs to be maintained. Whether theis is through paying taxes, being informed, voting, serving your country, etc.

Sounds like we have people arguing both sides of this one. I fall on the 'it's a right' category, but believe that government needs to work much harder to encourage people to take and interest and excerise their right.

Paul.

Successfully updated karma reason!

cubanbob (i moved some of my best responses up so things are not in 100% order):
-------------
Now tell me again why is it moral for one person to pay a thousand times more than another and still have the same vote.
-------------

because one person is equal to another under the law, as you mentioned earlier.

the voting booth doesn't care if you got a purple heart, an alcoholism problem, twenty-three kids, no kids, or a solid gold roll royce. one man, one vote.

a priest, a rabbi, a medal of honor recipient, an 18-year, and a billionaire walk into a bar. they all voted for different people. the vote for each counted as one vote. are the priest, rabbi, 18-year old, and medal of honor recipient immoral because they think each one of their votes should be equal to the vote of the billionaire?

i think most people's brains are as good at picking a congressman as yours, or draginol's, or bill gates' or the hilton sisters (the rich model playgirl heirs to the hilton hotel chain).

-------------
"the house of representatives does more than allocate spending. to mix up the example i gave above, do you think in times of war only soldiers should be allowed to vote? they have to "pay" the price of war. and the possiblity of any of the top 10% being a soldier is probably less than any other group, but they will probably have many foreign investments to protect. so should the top 10% votes be taken away since they are getting more property protection at the cost of soldiers' lives who are not part of the top 10%?" Just like the police and firemen, the military is a volunteer force. When you join you know the risk you take. Using your logic should cops and prison guards be the only ones who should vote on matters relating to law enforcement? I never stated that only those who pay taxes should be allowd to vote. I stated that taxpayers (net taxpayers) should have the right to vote for the house of representatives where all spending bills originate. Yes the house does allocate more than spending. But then again the president and the senate also have a say in allocating spending.
-------------

actually i was using YOUR logic to prove my point. i'm the one advocating for the right to vote, remember?

by saying it's ok to limit the vote because of money, but soldiers and cops are different, you're putting property in front of life in importance.

this is actually kinda funny since the presidency and senate were the parts of gevernment that weren't in direct control of the voting population in the original constitution! the electoral college and state legislatures were supposed to elect them. so under your system, the inmates still get a say in running the asylum since they still get a hand in deciding the senate and president.

-------------
Do you and russellmz2 believe that there should be no restrictions or qualifactions on the right to vote? Should minors, the profoundly retarded,criminals illegal aliens the legaly insane as well as the comatose and dead also should have the right to vote? Indeed should everyone on the planet also be allowed to vote in American national elections? Should any and all restrictions on universal sufferage be lifted?
-------------

as i mentioned in my previous post: i didn't mention 5-year olds in my original article but, no, i don't think they should vote. if the comatose/dead filled out and mailed his ballot out before the accident/sickness i believe it should count. the "profoundly" retarded will no doubt be unable to vote in probably 99.999999999999999% of cases. should we add a 'are you retarded' test? what if a retarded guy managed to fill out his form and walk to the voting booth? no, i don't think non-citizens should vote. when i mentioned the proud achievement of the 26th amendment, i pretty much agreed that was a reasonable standard. and as i mentioned above, all but three states have limits on criminal voting rights.

cubanbob:
-------------
russellmz2: a few points to consider. I am also an immigrant. My parents and grandparents while not as fluent in english as in spanish made it a point to be functionaly literate in english to read newspapers and be able to understand to english language radio and television as well as spanish media. They made it a point to be able to read and understand an english language ballot.
-------------

that's cool. what nationality are you?

what sort of test would you make so that they could pass it but a non-english speaker could not? how would the test be done: in person when registering?

-------------
What part of the fact that if all voters are equal at the ballot then the person who pays little or nothing has a proprtionaly greater vote than the person paying millions in taxes do you not understand?
Tell me again just what extra benefits a maximum rate taxpayer gets from the federal government that the average person gets? A special lane on the interstate? A response by the FBI when calling for a 911 call?
-------------

do you believe that the top 10% are less powerful or influential in the political process than any other 10% group?

yes, 90% of the voter population has a greater vote than 10% of the voter population as i mentioned above. but 1 rich vote = 1 poor vote.

-------------
I don't know how old you are but I remember when Carter was president paying income taxes at the 70% level. That my friend is called progrssive conmfiscation.
-------------

why did the bottom 90% allow the taxe rate to go down? momentary mass insanity? reaasonable discourse that convinced them? why can't that be done today instead of "don't let them vote on spending". are they stupider? crazier? greedier? more evil? more immoral?

-------------
Social security a tax? You mean FDR and the democrats lied when they claimed that it is an old age insurance plan? That the government lies when I get my annual statement of future benefits from the social security administration. No friend it cannot be a tax, it must be an insurance premium. Just like a life insurance or disability plan.
-------------

i made a remark that social security was regressive. going on about how democrats, government, and fdr are liars does not convince me my remark was wrong.

-------------
"theoretically, if you are a property owner, you have a decent job, and are budgeting to account for the fact you have to pay taxes, and are not poor. plus, since you own property you are likely not paying rent to someone else? (i am making some assumptions here as to why)" You sure are. Ever heard of proposition 13 in California?
Unless your super wealthy and live modestly to your means, can anyone know what their earnings will be with absolute certainty 10 or 20 years in the future? At least with an income tax you what you will pay in any given year.
-------------

nope, never heard of it. uh, did you mean property tax will tell you what you will pay any year?

i think you're right, i just read a post in another board how the a lot of those considered poor in america own their own homes and property. the reason is that a lot of the elderly and in agrian areas own their own homes but still may not have a large income.

Reply By: Mr_Frog Posted: Monday, October 20, 2003
--------------
The gerund is whizzing.

I'll have my bonus points now
--------------

sweet!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think our current requirements for voting are just fine. The only thing I would change is to ensure that convicted felons always be allowed to vote once they have done their time and/or made whatever restitution required by the court. I feel not allowing them to vote is a form of double jeopardy.

"Quite true,wisdom and common sense are not directly directly proportional to IQ. The radical left is proof positive of that."--cubanbob

As is the radical right (or radical anything for that matter).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Clearly one thing we need is a better quoting setup so that it's easier to quote.

I tend to agree with CubanBob up to a point (btw, you should create an accoutn CubanBob so that you score points from your comments).

I do believe that everyone should have to pay some sort of minimal federal tax in order to be allowed to vote or they need to serve in the military.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply By: Draginol
-----------------------
Clearly one thing we need is a better quoting setup so that it's easier to quote.
----------------------

now, if only there was a person..someone who could speed up the process of getting a quote system in place...someone high up in stardock, perhaps...

----------------------
I do believe that everyone should have to pay some sort of minimal federal tax in order to be allowed to vote or they need to serve in the military.
----------------------

what about non-chaplain priests? not only do they not have to file income taxes at all, they take a vow of poverty!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply By: Draginol
------------------------------
I do believe that everyone should have to pay some sort of minimal federal tax in order to be allowed to vote or they need to serve in the military.
------------------------------

I'd rather see everyone vote. The problem isn't people who don't pay tax getting to vote, the problem is people not contributing to the society they get to vote in. The right to vote should be sacred. The problem is ensuring that all those who vote (the entire population) are contributing to society. Whether through the work they do (charity, military, ...), paying taxes, raising kids, etc.

Paul

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: