Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on May 21, 2014, 02:41:53 PM
-
This is a great idea, and was originally required I believe. Leftists are going nuts over the idea...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/20/fl-lawmakers-radical-cure-for-uninformed-voting-you-have-to-be-a-property-owner/
-
This is a great idea, and was originally required I believe. Leftists are going nuts over the idea...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/20/fl-lawmakers-radical-cure-for-uninformed-voting-you-have-to-be-a-property-owner/
Interesting, but who actually "owns" their property?
-
Interesting, but who actually "owns" their property?
the banks. the banks vote for you. banks are always looking out for the little guy, so I think things are gonna turn out alright!
-
Lets make everything like it was in thd good ole 1700's while we are at it.
Its a dumb idea.
-
Banks are only technically lein holders.
-
How is it a good idea?
-
How is it a good idea?
it's not
it's beyond stupid but Ted Yoho is a birther so saying stupid shit is par for the course
-
the banks. the banks vote for you. banks are always looking out for the little guy, so I think things are gonna turn out alright!
My house is paid for, but I still have to pay property tax so in reality I don't own the land my free and clear house sits on.
-
My house is paid for, but I still have to pay property tax so in reality I don't own the land my free and clear house sits on.
in that case, we should allow our elected officials to vote for us.
-
My house is paid for, but I still have to pay property tax so in reality I don't own the land my free and clear house sits on.
congratulations on paying off your house but of course you own the land
just because you have to pay property taxes doesn't mean you don't own your land
in reality, the fact that you have to pay property taxes is the proof that you own the land
-
This is a great idea, and was originally required I believe. Leftists are going nuts over the idea...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/20/fl-lawmakers-radical-cure-for-uninformed-voting-you-have-to-be-a-property-owner/
It's not a great idea. It's stupid and pointless. Representative YahooYoho's original assertion is that uninformed voting is dangerous - and he's right, it is. But owning property doesn't prevent uninformed voting anymore than more libraries prevent drunk driving. It's just designed to get him on the news.
Not to mention that his assertion is likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has, repeatedly, interpreted the 15th Amendment in an expansive way post-Reconstruction. I doubt a "show us the deed to your property" would fly.
-
Except there`s lots of uninformed voters that own property so i`m not seeing how this will help. Sounds like class warfare to me.
-
How is it a good idea?
People would have to earn the right to vote by having an actual stake in the decisions they're making.
-
in that case, we should allow our elected officials to vote for us.
;D ;D ;D
-
People would have to earn the right to vote by having an actual stake in the decisions they're making.
People already do, and it's not helping. Allowing only property owners to vote is stupid and isn't helpful in solving the problem of an uninterested or uninformed electorate.
-
People would have to earn the right to vote by having an actual stake in the decisions they're making.
Take a young couple just married who are renting while saving for a down payment on a house. They both have good jobs and pay taxes but don't own property. Shouldn't they be allowed to vote on issues that effect them, such as, issues pertaining to the allocations of money from the taxes they pay?
-
People would have to earn the right to vote by having an actual stake in the decisions they're making.
Currently people don't have a stake in the issues they vote on because they don't own property?
-
In theory good idea,
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO LOSE , you should be motivated to protect it and thus vote in your best interest- which should be the best interest of your neighbor and fellow countryman if we are TRULY united, which benefits EVERYBODY in the long run
Illegals, bums, leeches, communists .... would not agree with this theory though
-
In theory good idea,
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO LOSE , you should be motivated to protect it and thus vote in your best interest- which should be the best interest of your neighbor and fellow countryman if we are TRULY united, which benefits EVERYBODY in the long run
Illegals, bums, leeches, communists .... would not agree with this theory though
Fair point, regarding property only. If all issues voted on were about property or relating to property it makes sense.
But they are not.
-
Ideas such as this, "only property owners", "only educated citizens", etc. "should be eligible to vote", have historically been a cover for "How do we keep wimmin and knee-grows from voting?" And that's totally wrong.
-
Naturally property owners would Institute rules making property ownerehip more difficult in order to maintain power.
-
Terrible idea. Every citizen should have the right vote, regardless of property ownership, employment, intelligence level, etc. That kind of freedom is what makes this country great.
-
Terrible idea. Every citizen should have the right vote, regardless of property ownership, employment, intelligence level, etc. That kind of freedom is what makes this country great.
Beach Bum ain't lying.
-
EVERYONE having the right to vote is DANGEROUS to a developed country like the USA, should EVERYONE have the right to own a gun ? ( I mean their should be SOME restrictions - felons, mentally ill etc... there has to be SOME limits and controls built in to protect everyone, illegals having a say in OUR govt. and policies that affect an AMERICAN CITIZEN - that ain't right )
Morons that can vote to create ( intentionally or unintentionally ) a socialist-communist state would and will DESTROY America
No, EVERYBODY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE, just like EVERYBODY shouldn't be a doctor, lawyer, teacher etc... they may want to, but that doesn't make it right
-
EVERYONE having the right to vote is DANGEROUS to a developed country like the USA, should EVERYONE have the right to own a gun ? ( I mean their should be SOME restrictions - felons, mentally ill etc... there has to be SOME limits and controls built in to protect everyone, illegals having a say in OUR govt. and policies that affect an AMERICAN CITIZEN - that ain't right )
Morons that can vote to create ( intentionally or unintentionally ) a socialist-communist state would and will DESTROY America
No, EVERYBODY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE, just like EVERYBODY shouldn't be a doctor, lawyer, teacher etc... they may want to, but that doesn't make it right
Illegals don't have a right to vote in state or federal elections.
If we restrict who can vote, and who can be a doctor lawyer etc. we will no longer be free.
A free country means bad and good, dumb or stupid can participate.
Who determines who is worthy?
An argument can be made that anyone supporting the idea of only property owners having the right to vote is so stupid that they themselves are too stupid to cast an intelligent vote.
-
As a property owner I don't support this.
I'd support a simple multiple choice test that forced the voter to correctly identify the main policies and vote record of the candidate they're voting for, which would mean voters would have to educate themselves to the basic level on who they vote for.
-
As a property owner I don't support this.
I'd support a simple multiple choice test that forced the voter to correctly identify the main policies and vote record of the candidate they're voting for, which would mean voters would have to educate themselves to the basic level on who they vote for.
That's akin to an intelligence test. Why shouldn't someone be able to vote for someone solely because they belong to a particular political party, regardless of whether they can identify main policies, etc.? Or how about voting against someone from a particular party? Or maybe they don't like (or do like) one position a candidate has taken?
-
That's akin to an intelligence test. Why shouldn't someone be able to vote for someone solely because they belong to a particular political party, regardless of whether they can identify main policies, etc.? Or how about voting against someone from a particular party? Or maybe they don't like (or do like) one position a candidate has taken?
yes, uninformed people obviously shouldn't be voting
The founders didn't envisage tens of millions of mouth breathing masses mindlessly voting, or they'd have done more than just repeatedly caution against irresponsible voting.
Isn't the constitution a 'living document' (lol) that can be amended for todays times?
-
EVERYONE having the right to vote is DANGEROUS to a developed country like the USA, should EVERYONE have the right to own a gun ? ( I mean their should be SOME restrictions - felons, mentally ill etc... there has to be SOME limits and controls built in to protect everyone, illegals having a say in OUR govt. and policies that affect an AMERICAN CITIZEN - that ain't right )
Morons that can vote to create ( intentionally or unintentionally ) a socialist-communist state would and will DESTROY America
No, EVERYBODY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE, just like EVERYBODY shouldn't be a doctor, lawyer, teacher etc... they may want to, but that doesn't make it right
Nobody here is saying "EVERYONE" should have the right to vote. What they are saying is every citizen should have the right to vote. That certainly excludes illegals.
-
As a property owner I don't support this.
I'd support a simple multiple choice test that forced the voter to correctly identify the main policies and vote record of the candidate they're voting for, which would mean voters would have to educate themselves to the basic level on who they vote for.
Are you joking? Remember what happened with Florida voters in 2000? ;D
-
I believe that all American citizens of age should continue to have the right to vote. But I think that perhaps your vote should count as more votes depending upon your tax bracket.
It's been said that many of those who are outwardly limousine liberals are only pretending to be such because it's PC to do so, and it keeps them from being attacked so much because of their wealth.
Apparently many feel differently behind closed doors, and may not vote as they say they do when they're inside that booth with the curtain drawn.
-
Currently people don't have a stake in the issues they vote on because they don't own property?
The only stake they have is the flow of things provided to them by property owners. :-\
Which is no stake at all...
-
The only stake they have is the flow of things provided to them by property owners. :-\
Which is no stake at all...
So people who dont own property don't pay taxes?
And tax revenue is 100% from property taxes?
-
So people who dont own property don't pay taxes?
And tax revenue is 100% from property taxes?
fuck me,,,, forget it ;D
-
Only tax payers and those of retirement age who paid in should be able to vote. No women either.
-
Only tax payers and those of retirement age who paid in should be able to vote. No women either.
As a country we would be in a much better position if that was the case.
-
Better we should be like Australia and make voting mandatory for all citizens, if you ask me.
-
Better we should be like Australia and make voting mandatory for all citizens, if you ask me.
Mandatory? Why?
-
Big govt making things mandatory is exactly the kind of thing I vote against.
-
Mandatory? Why?
So that more people take part. Maybe mandatory in the sense of fining those that don't take part (like Australia does) IS going too far.
Maybe the gov't could reward voters in some way to encourage participation?
-
So that more people take part.
That's not a reason: it's a goal. Why should people be forced to take part? There's plenty of legitimate reasons people have for not voting. Why force them?
Maybe the gov't could reward voters in some way to encourage participation?
Let's say you give every voter a crisp $5 bill... do you know what will happen? A bunch of people who know nothing about the issues and don't want to know anything about them will come to claim their crisp $5. They'll cast a meaningless vote - at best it will be a "None of the Above" across the board and won't affect anything. At worst, it will be a vote cast at random and it would effectively cancel out the vote of someone who votes their conscience - perhaps yours.
So yeah, incentives sound like a great idea!
-
If you receive government assistance you are ineligible to vote, would be a better solution.
-
That's not a reason: it's a goal. Why should people be forced to take part? There's plenty of legitimate reasons people have for not voting. Why force them?
Let's say you give every voter a crisp $5 bill... do you know what will happen? A bunch of people who know nothing about the issues and don't want to know anything about them will come to claim their crisp $5. They'll cast a meaningless vote - at best it will be a "None of the Above" across the board and won't affect anything. At worst, it will be a vote cast at random and it would effectively cancel out the vote of someone who votes their conscience - perhaps yours.
So yeah, incentives sound like a great idea!
Whoa! Who said money? I purposely chose the word "reward" instead of "money" because of scenarios like the one you desrcibe.
Not sure what the reward could be, though. Personally, I would like something like a voucher that would let me get out of one parking ticket or something like that but I can see how that wouldn't appeal to a lot of people so maybe the reward could vary?
Maybe, instead of a reward or penalty to encourage more voter participation in elections, you could just make it easier by allowing folks that have internet service to vote from home using the internet. A system like that might not be feasible yet, but I've gotta think that it can't be too far from being possible. People do all kinds of privacy sensitive shit over the internet already. Maybe you make the people that want to do it this way use their webcam? Just a thought.
-
Only tax payers and those of retirement age who paid in should be able to vote. No women either.
Are you saying that non-citizen, legal aliens should have the right to vote? They pay taxes.
-
Are you saying that non-citizen, legal aliens should have the right to vote? They pay taxes.
I wonder how many legals / illegals HAVE voted in recent years? I can just imagine which way they voted...
-
EVERYONE having the right to vote is DANGEROUS to a developed country like the USA, should EVERYONE have the right to own a gun ? ( I mean their should be SOME restrictions - felons, mentally ill etc... there has to be SOME limits and controls built in to protect everyone, illegals having a say in OUR govt. and policies that affect an AMERICAN CITIZEN - that ain't right )
Morons that can vote to create ( intentionally or unintentionally ) a socialist-communist state would and will DESTROY America
No, EVERYBODY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE, just like EVERYBODY shouldn't be a doctor, lawyer, teacher etc... they may want to, but that doesn't make it right
Depends on what you mean by "dangerous", I guess.
Also, it's probably more dangerous in an undeveloped country, don't you think?
-
Whoa! Who said money? I purposely chose the word "reward" instead of "money" because of scenarios like the one you desrcibe.
Not sure what the reward could be, though. Personally, I would like something like a voucher that would let me get out of one parking ticket or something like that but I can see how that wouldn't appeal to a lot of people so maybe the reward could vary?
Maybe, instead of a reward or penalty to encourage more voter participation in elections, you could just make it easier by allowing folks that have internet service to vote from home using the internet. A system like that might not be feasible yet, but I've gotta think that it can't be too far from being possible. People do all kinds of privacy sensitive shit over the internet already. Maybe you make the people that want to do it this way use their webcam? Just a thought.
It doesn't matter what the incentive (i.e. reward) is. If it's meant to entice people to vote, it must be something people want. If it's something people don't want, it doesn't help get more people involved and is, therefore, pointless. If it is something that people want, then sinceall it "costs" is casting a vote, people will just go cast a vote.
"Great," you might say, "this is exactly what we wanted! More people involved." I don't agree... the number of people casting votes is a meaningless metric. How does it help us if 80% of the people show up to vote, and all they do is randomly pick a candidate, without knowing that candidate's position, platform, beliefs, etc.?
The important metric is how many people are seriously involved in the political process and make informed decisions when casting their ballots.
A "get out of a speeding ticket" card won't improve that number. In fact, it will only reduce it. That's why your scheme fails; not because of the type of reward chosen.