Were we better off before universal suffrage?

B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
And I'm not talking about minorities or women.

When this country was founded it had a radical idea, all free white men over the age of 25 that owned property could vote.

Sounds oppressive today, but it really was earth shattering in the 18th century.

Would we not be better off to move back more towards that than the at present requirement of surviving for 18 years?

I would like to see all persons over the age of 21 who own property, or pay taxes, and don't receive any "means tested" government hand out (food stamp, welfare, ect...) be the only group that can vote.

Male felame, white black red blown, Christian jew Muslim.

But those three requirements, over 21, and own property or pay taxes, and no hand outs.

Reason, more mature for 21.

And have some skin in tha game, for the property or taxes. I was recently on food stamps, I shouldn't have a say in the system, to keep me from voting for a guy that just promised to give me more stuff.

What say you? Is simply existing enough for the privilege of voting?
 
SnapsProvolone

SnapsProvolone

Well-Known Member
The electoral process was doomed by the advent of television that spoon fed ignorance to the masses in disgusting quantity.
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
And I'm not talking about minorities or women.

When this country was founded it had a radical idea, all free white men over the age of 25 that owned property could vote.

Sounds oppressive today, but it really was earth shattering in the 18th century.

Would we not be better off to move back more towards that than the at present requirement of surviving for 18 years?

I would like to see all persons over the age of 21 who own property, or pay taxes, and don't receive any "means tested" government hand out (food stamp, welfare, ect...) be the only group that can vote.

Male felame, white black red blown, Christian jew Muslim.

But those three requirements, over 21, and own property or pay taxes, and no hand outs.

Reason, more mature for 21.

And have some skin in tha game, for the property or taxes. I was recently on food stamps, I shouldn't have a say in the system, to keep me from voting for a guy that just promised to give me more stuff.

What say you? Is simply existing enough for the privilege of voting?
Click to expand...
Then increase the draft age and minimum age of enlistment. Maybe you'd have an argument then.
 
JohnnySocko

JohnnySocko

Active Member
BigNBushy said:
And I'm not talking about minorities or women.

When this country was founded it had a radical idea, all free white men over the age of 25 that owned property could vote.

Sounds oppressive today, but it really was earth shattering in the 18th century.

Would we not be better off to move back more towards that than the at present requirement of surviving for 18 years?

I would like to see all persons over the age of 21 who own property, or pay taxes, and don't receive any "means tested" government hand out (food stamp, welfare, ect...) be the only group that can vote.

Male felame, white black red blown, Christian jew Muslim.

But those three requirements, over 21, and own property or pay taxes, and no hand outs.

Reason, more mature for 21.

And have some skin in tha game, for the property or taxes. I was recently on food stamps, I shouldn't have a say in the system, to keep me from voting for a guy that just promised to give me more stuff.

What say you? Is simply existing enough for the privilege of voting?
Click to expand...
Sounds sorta like "Starship Troopers"...whats next, the eerily similar Nazi looking uniforms?

Naw, all BS aside; this is not totally a unreasonable concept (on the surface) that voting should be earned (or constrained under some reasonable criteria), only thing is if you think about it, a system along those lines is even more open to abuses than the current one of allowing uniformed easily influenced masses to be bought (dems) or scared (Reps) by paid for media outlets (Fox)

SnapsProvolone said:
The electoral process was doomed by the advent of television that spoon fed ignorance to the masses in disgusting quantity.
Click to expand...
It got worse once politically slanted outlets started calling themselves "Fair and Balanced" :?
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
joe macclennan said:
so kids should be allowed to go fight and die for our country but not vote?

shocking opinion coming from you really bnb
Click to expand...
It's bad enough that I was declared responsible enough to kill someone at 18, but too irresponsible to have a beer. This just compounds the issue.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
And I'm not talking about minorities or women. When this country was founded it had a radical idea, all free white men over the age of 25 that owned property could vote. Sounds oppressive today, but it really was earth shattering in the 18th century. Would we not be better off to move back more towards that than the at present requirement of surviving for 18 years? I would like to see all persons over the age of 21 who own property, or pay taxes, and don't receive any "means tested" government hand out (food stamp, welfare, ect...) be the only group that can vote. Male felame, white black red blown, Christian jew Muslim. But those three requirements, over 21, and own property or pay taxes, and no hand outs. Reason, more mature for 21. And have some skin in tha game, for the property or taxes. I was recently on food stamps, I shouldn't have a say in the system, to keep me from voting for a guy that just promised to give me more stuff. What say you? Is simply existing enough for the privilege of voting?
Click to expand...
you already do this..it's called voter suppression:wall: it's easier to cheat voters out of their vote, than to win on your own merits.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
Then increase the draft age and minimum age of enlistment. Maybe you'd have an argument then.
Click to expand...
The only problem with that is 19 is considered to be the best military age. I'll say this, however, the least important of the criterium I gave is age. If a 17 year old owns property or pays taxes, then I don't suppose I have a problem with him voting.


Going off to fight in wars that protect this nation is a duty (although we have not had that kind of war in some time) you could easily, however, do what my original thing was and not change it, just don't permit anyone not old enough to drink, or vote, to serve in a combat roll. The army needs truck drivers also.

Besides, chances are if you're in the military and it is a close ejection, a Democrat is probably going to throw the box of overseas military votes awayd
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
joe macclennan said:
so kids should be allowed to go fight and die for our country but not vote?

shocking opinion coming from you really bnb
Click to expand...
Voting is not a right, it gets confusing because some go around calling it one, but Bush v Gore, and history, has always held the view there is no right to vote. The only thing is, that when there is given an opportunity to vote, it can't be denied based on race, sex, yada yada.

Very few 18 year olds vote anyway.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Voting is not a right, it gets confusing because some go around calling it one, but Bush v Gore, and history, has always held the view there is no right to vote. The only thing is, that when there is given an opportunity to vote, it can't be denied based on race, sex, yada yada.

Very few 18 year olds vote anyway.
Click to expand...
Let us get real about this. Voting is county by county. We cannot count the voters and we cannot count the votes,

That is OK, since almost all the time voters have no power, anyway. Only voting blocks have power.
 
S

spandy

Well-Known Member
kpmarine said:
It's bad enough that I was declared responsible enough to kill someone at 18, but too irresponsible to have a beer. This just compounds the issue.
Click to expand...
Were the laws of alcohol based on maturity of the mind, or the liver?

18 is more programmable than 21. At 21, I bet my "cape" wasn't a 1/3 the size it was when I was 18. I doubt we would ever change the enlistment age for this reason (I would support it, however), but I couldn't in good conscience hand beers out to 18 year olds at their heart's desire.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
And I'm not talking about minorities or women.

When this country was founded it had a radical idea, all free white men over the age of 25 that owned property could vote.

Sounds oppressive today, but it really was earth shattering in the 18th century.

Would we not be better off to move back more towards that than the at present requirement of surviving for 18 years?

I would like to see all persons over the age of 21 who own property, or pay taxes, and don't receive any "means tested" government hand out (food stamp, welfare, ect...) be the only group that can vote.

Male felame, white black red blown, Christian jew Muslim.

But those three requirements, over 21, and own property or pay taxes, and no hand outs.

Reason, more mature for 21.

And have some skin in tha game, for the property or taxes. I was recently on food stamps, I shouldn't have a say in the system, to keep me from voting for a guy that just promised to give me more stuff.

What say you? Is simply existing enough for the privilege of voting?
Click to expand...

Lysander Spooner called. He was laughing so hard, it was hard to hear him, but he said you might want to start reading his essays and focus on the term consent.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Thought that name looked familiar. A proto-Marxist. Some good ideas, a very long career and a prolific writing hobby. We're probably better off for him, though.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Funny, I was watching Howard's End, last night. Lynn Redgrave said, at dinner, "I really think discussion of this type must be left to the men."

The young women at the table cry, "What about the Suffrage!?!?!?!"

Here reply was casual, "Well, I have been very glad I have no need to vote."

So, voting is not what the founders imagined. They imagined responsible sovereign citizens who see it as a sacred duty. In their day, slaves and women were not considered sovereign.

Now no one is.

I like Robert Heinlein's view. People may serve and fight for the freedom to vote. And only those that served can vote.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
And I'm not talking about minorities or women.

When this country was founded it had a radical idea, all free white men over the age of 25 that owned property could vote.

Sounds oppressive today, but it really was earth shattering in the 18th century.

Would we not be better off to move back more towards that than the at present requirement of surviving for 18 years?

I would like to see all persons over the age of 21 who own property, or pay taxes, and don't receive any "means tested" government hand out (food stamp, welfare, ect...) be the only group that can vote.

Male felame, white black red blown, Christian jew Muslim.

But those three requirements, over 21, and own property or pay taxes, and no hand outs.

Reason, more mature for 21.

And have some skin in tha game, for the property or taxes. I was recently on food stamps, I shouldn't have a say in the system, to keep me from voting for a guy that just promised to give me more stuff.

What say you? Is simply existing enough for the privilege of voting?
Click to expand...
By that logic, the more "skin" one has in the game, the more votes they should have? Or look at it another way. If only those who own property can vote, then they would naturaly vote to ensure that no one but themselves will EVER own property.

The idea presumes firstly that if one does not own property, then one cannot actually be a citizen, as I've said before, they are more likely to be serfs, told what they can and cannot do by those who not only own property, but now, with the non-owners unable to have their voices heard in any way, those now non-property owners will be owned themselves.

Better off? why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top