Were we better off before universal suffrage?

Red1966 · Mar 29, 2014

JohnnySocko said:
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) It got worse once politically slanted outlets started calling themselves "Fair and Balanced"

If you want to be viewed as reasonable and unbiased, you would have included MSNBC, NBC, ABC, AND CBS. But you're not reasonable or unbiased.

Red1966 · Mar 29, 2014

schuylaar said:
you already do this..it's called voter suppression it's easier to cheat voters out of their vote, than to win on your own merits.

Like when Al Gore had thousands of overseas military votes disqualified because they didn't have a postmark? Your concept of "voter suppression" is somewhat illogical.

tip top toker · Mar 29, 2014

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?

So what if the government fucks the economy to the point that people can't afford to own a property, or even find a job that will give them enough hours to pay taxes. They don't get to vote? Sounds fucking stupid to me. Are you seriously suggesting that a governments inability to do its job means millions can't vote them out because the governments actions,man's its laws, do not let you.

How about tackle the absurd party system before you attempt to tackle voting rights.

UncleBuck · Mar 29, 2014

canndo said:
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?

his view stems from the culture of the south he was raised in. democracy for the privileged elite, slavery for the rest.

it's this mindset that keeps his racism burning strong.

maybe not literally burning, a la red, but figuratively.

Red1966 · Mar 29, 2014

tip top toker said:
So what if the government fucks the economy to the point that people can't afford to own a property, or even find a job that will give them enough hours to pay taxes. They don't get to vote? Sounds fucking stupid to me. Are you seriously suggesting that a governments inability to do its job means millions can't vote them out because the governments actions,man's its laws, do not let you. How about tackle the absurd party system before you attempt to tackle voting rights.

What's wrong with the absurd party? I happen to be a member of the absurd party and I resent your implication.

Doer · Mar 30, 2014

VOTE ABSURD!!!

Tell all your neighbors. You must VOTE ABSURD!!

"is there really any other choice?" (tm)

BigNBushy · Mar 30, 2014

canndo said:
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?

While I am not 100% opposed, on principal, to the more skin the more votes you have concept, I do not like it in general. Because it makes the assumption rather implicitly, that some are better than others.

I am more of the mind that if I decide to do something charitable and buy a persons family their Christmas presents, they shouldn't have the deciding vote in what I get them. In other words, when someone either doesn't contribute, or more likely, gets their livelihood off of the people, they shouldn't be put in a position to dictate how much, or for how long they can get the free ride.

You exclude from your analysis the second criteria, be a tax payer. This is because there are many folks in this modern society that contribute meaningfully that decide to never own property. In many large cities it is more economical to rent than to own. But the person can still be an asset.

Under my proposal, the cashier at the local gas station would get a vote. It isn't anti poor. This gas station employee is close to minimum wage, but they are a contributor, so they get a vote.

And as far as creating a system where others could never own property, well that wasn't a problem when we voted like that. Furthmore, that is what the bill of rights is for.

We have protections in the constitution.

bearkat42 · Mar 30, 2014

One man, one vote.

Doer · Mar 30, 2014

bearkat42 said:
One man, one vote.

Then I say, let only the women vote.

BigNBushy · Mar 30, 2014

bearkat42 said:
One man, one vote.

What about women?

I heard a guy one time on campus. He blamed the breakup of the nuclear family on female suffrage. I asked why. He said because the rational of having only men vote is that way each family gets a vote. The men decide, as the head of the household, what the families political expression would be. So when it came time to vote, the woman might influence him one way or the other, but the man decided.

So when women could finally vote, they no longer needed to stay in a marriage to influence politics. So they decided to start divorcing when shit got crazy.

And having worked in a law firm, my experience is that women are the ones who initiate a divorce more often. But that is not related I don't think.

Either way, I respect women, When I have been outworked or outsmarted it was more often by a woman, I think they try harder to overcome that perceived glass celing. A law professor told me once that if opposing counsel is a female be prepared for a very hard working case where every I is dotted and every t crossed. They are scared to death of being "good ole boy'd"

bearkat42 · Mar 30, 2014

Women are awesome! Some of my relatives are women.

UncleBuck · Mar 30, 2014

BigNBushy said:
What about women?

I heard a guy one time on campus. He blamed the breakup of the nuclear family on female suffrage. I asked why. He said because the rational of having only men vote is that way each family gets a vote. The men decide, as the head of the household, what the families political expression would be. So when it came time to vote, the woman might influence him one way or the other, but the man decided.

So when women could finally vote, they no longer needed to stay in a marriage to influence politics. So they decided to start divorcing when shit got crazy.

And having worked in a law firm, my experience is that women are the ones who initiate a divorce more often. But that is not related I don't think.

Either way, I respect women, When I have been outworked or outsmarted it was more often by a woman, I think they try harder to overcome that perceived glass celing. A law professor told me once that if opposing counsel is a female be prepared for a very hard working case where every I is dotted and every t crossed. They are scared to death of being "good ole boy'd"

you are literally retarded.

tip top toker · Mar 31, 2014

BigNBushy said:
While I am not 100% opposed, on principal, to the more skin the more votes you have concept, I do not like it in general. Because it makes the assumption rather implicitly, that some are better than others.

I am more of the mind that if I decide to do something charitable and buy a persons family their Christmas presents, they shouldn't have the deciding vote in what I get them. In other words, when someone either doesn't contribute, or more likely, gets their livelihood off of the people, they shouldn't be put in a position to dictate how much, or for how long they can get the free ride.

You exclude from your analysis the second criteria, be a tax payer. This is because there are many folks in this modern society that contribute meaningfully that decide to never own property. In many large cities it is more economical to rent than to own. But the person can still be an asset.

Under my proposal, the cashier at the local gas station would get a vote. It isn't anti poor. This gas station employee is close to minimum wage, but they are a contributor, so they get a vote.

And as far as creating a system where others could never own property, well that wasn't a problem when we voted like that. Furthmore, that is what the bill of rights is for.

We have protections in the constitution.

Due to how fucked the economy is, my last job made it impossible to pay tax, they couldn't afford to pay staff that much money. So because of that, I don't get a vote right? Despite contributing to society, simply not via taxes.

I've yet to read one credible argument for your proposals. You're making statements while completely ignoring reality.

So what is your threshold for being able to vote with regard to paying tax? Do they have to pay tax for the entire term, a month, their working life? What if the government fucks the economic recovery, and John is made redundant. He no longer pays tax so no longer has the ability to vote out the people who put him in his position. This sounds very much like a situation of creating a system where the rich help the rich, and the poor get poorer. Very much like today, only now its set in law. Unless you're a success, you have no legal ability to have a voice.

I don't often agree with bucky, but he hit the nail on the head with his above post.

Doer · Mar 31, 2014

tip top toker said:
I don't often agree with bucky, but he hit the nail on the head with his above post.

Exactly. Pay taxes to vote??? We don't want Corporations to vote. We sure don't want the IRS, saying who gets to vote each time.
The list will come out after certain elections...wooop clerical error.

The idea is beyond horrible.

BigNBushy · Mar 31, 2014

tip top toker said:
Due to how fucked the economy is, my last job made it impossible to pay tax, they couldn't afford to pay staff that much money. So because of that, I don't get a vote right? Despite contributing to society, simply not via taxes.

I've yet to read one credible argument for your proposals. You're making statements while completely ignoring reality.

So what is your threshold for being able to vote with regard to paying tax? Do they have to pay tax for the entire term, a month, their working life? What if the government fucks the economic recovery, and John is made redundant. He no longer pays tax so no longer has the ability to vote out the people who put him in his position. This sounds very much like a situation of creating a system where the rich help the rich, and the poor get poorer. Very much like today, only now its set in law. Unless you're a success, you have no legal ability to have a voice.

I don't often agree with bucky, but he hit the nail on the head with his above post.

You ever stop to consider the difference between an idea and the final implementation of that idea in terms of policy?

You know every piece of legislation is dozens of pages long.

I simply expressed a desire to have voting, or rather the prohibition of certain people from voting tied to their status as folks who contribute nothing, and in effect are a sponge on society.

If you dont agree with me, that is fine. But you act as if I presented some form of final legislation on the issue.

You say you are basically failing to agree with me bacuase I have given no threshold for who can, can't vote.

I think I pretty much said earlier the girl who works at the gas station can vote. Even though she herself might draw food stamps, and be on some form of assistance. The reason for this is because although her personal income is small, and she does get government benefits, her contribution to the gas station allows it to function, providing a service and a marketplace for the exchange of goods for money. She helps the economy.

I'm not here to write legislation. I simply put an idea out there, is existing for 18 years really the best determination for who we should permit to vote? I think not.

If you want to play a hypothetical gotcha game, then fuck off, that's not productive in any sense. If I attempted to put this in air tight form it would be a tl:dr post.

The entire point is this; should voting be earned some how, or is simply living for 18 years enough to earn the vote?

Whatever you think is fine, I think it should be earned, or conditioned somehow.

tip top toker · Mar 31, 2014

BigNBushy said:
You ever stop to consider the difference between an idea and the final implementation of that idea in terms of policy?

You know every piece of legislation is dozens of pages long.

I simply expressed a desire to have voting, or rather the prohibition of certain people from voting tied to their status as folks who contribute nothing, and in effect are a sponge on society.

If you dont agree with me, that is fine. But you act as if I presented some form of final legislation on the issue.

You say you are basically failing to agree with me bacuase I have given no threshold for who can, can't vote.

I think I pretty much said earlier the girl who works at the gas station can vote. Even though she herself might draw food stamps, and be on some form of assistance. The reason for this is because although her personal income is small, and she does get government benefits, her contribution to the gas station allows it to function, providing a service and a marketplace for the exchange of goods for money. She helps the economy.

I'm not here to write legislation. I simply put an idea out there, is existing for 18 years really the best determination for who we should permit to vote? I think not.

If you want to play a hypothetical gotcha game, then fuck off, that's not productive in any sense. If I attempted to put this in air tight form it would be a tl:dr post.

The entire point is this; should voting be earned some how, or is simply living for 18 years enough to earn the vote?

Whatever you think is fine, I think it should be earned, or conditioned somehow.

Its a stupid idea ;-)

or do you not believe in the notion of equal rights? I doubt it given you clearly agree with the idea of discrimination. Discriminating via legislation in a fair manner. That sounds feasible right :lol:

Maybe we shouldn't let stupid people vote. Unless you have an IQ of 141 or have made a billion dollars then you clearly do not have what it takes to make choices on the nations future as you're just too fucking dumb to make a sensible decision.

BigNBushy · Mar 31, 2014

tip top toker said:
Its a stupid idea or do you not believe in the notion of equal rights? I doubt it given you clearly agree with the idea of discrimination. Discriminating via legislation in a fair manner. That sounds feasible right

Maybe we shouldn't let stupid people vote. Unless you have an IQ of 141 or have made a billion dollars then you clearly do not have what it takes to make choices on the nations future as you're just too fucking dumb to make a sensible decision.

I think there should be a small test prior to the vote, perhaps 10 questions or so where the voter has to identify certain issues and policies tied to certain candidates or political party.

Why are you comfortable with being ruled by idiots? Why should the vote of a totally uninformed person count just as much as someone who puts in a lot of time trying to figure out what is good for them or the country?

According to buck this would help democrats, as conservatives are dumb, can't usually read, and are more ill-informed than folks who watch no news.

And if that is the case, I'm fine with excluding the voted of people who vote for Romney, not knowing a thing about him, simply because he ain't black.

Doer · Mar 31, 2014

BigNBushy said:
I think there should be a small test prior to the vote, perhaps 10 questions or so where the voter has to identify certain issues and policies tied to certain candidates or political party.

Why are you comfortable with being ruled by idiots? Why should the vote of a totally uninformed person count just as much as someone who puts in a lot of time trying to figure out what is good for them or the country?

According to buck this would help democrats, as conservatives are dumb, can't usually read, and are more ill-informed than folks who watch no news.

And if that is the case, I'm fine with excluding the voted of people who vote for Romney, not knowing a thing about him, simply because he ain't black.

Voting tests were ruled un-C a long time ago.

BigNBushy · Apr 1, 2014

Doer said:
Voting tests were ruled un-C a long time ago.

Because of how they were implemented, but it doesnt mean they are a bad idea. I'm not in favor of stupid people, and people who are leaches voting or having any political power at all. And that would have included me for a couple of years.

Many who vote for democrat do so because they are giving them more money. So the democrats like to say how much of other people's money they are willing to give to worthless fucks. The worthless fucks are worthless fucks.

It may be a bad, un-c, or impossible idea, and I have not articulated a full plan, but I think universal suffrage is a bad, terrible idea.

Doer · Apr 1, 2014

BigNBushy said:
Because of how they were implemented, but it doesnt mean they are a bad idea. I'm not in favor of stupid people, and people who are leaches voting or having any political power at all. And that would have included me for a couple of years.

Many who vote for democrat do so because they are giving them more money. So the democrats like to say how much of other people's money they are willing to give to worthless fucks. The worthless fucks are worthless fucks.

It may be a bad, un-c, or impossible idea, and I have not articulated a full plan, but I think universal suffrage is a bad, terrible idea.

Too bad. We have the Big C, to prevent you worthless fucks, from suppressing the vote.

YWFs, have that track record.

Were we better off before universal suffrage?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member