if you are on welfare should you have the right to vote?

If you support democracy, then yes. If you don't support universal suffrage, then you are not a supporter of democracy, it's that simple.

That said, I suppose I am a technocrat in that I would prefer only educated people be able to vote. But given how difficult that would be to determine and implement, plus it discriminates based on socioeconomic factors, I support universal suffrage.

I would be alright with requiring politicians to be scientists, economists, and engineers, however.

 

Not enough people on welfare vote so I think when they apply for welfare they should sign a proxy for their welfare worker to vote for them. That will save ACORN the trouble of doing it without telling anyone.

 

Sorry, but America is NOT a democracy. The founding fathers INTENTIONALLY set up a government that was NOT a democracy, because to a man they all thought that a democracy was the most stupid form of government man had invented. We live in a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. This nation has NEVER really had universal suffrage, and it still does not. There are currently limits on age and criminal activity, that prevents people from voting. In the past, things such as education, money, ownership of land, religion, race, and on and on, have all been requirements to be able to vote. Every idiot should NOT be allowed to even vote for our representatives, there should be SOME form of qualification to be a voting citizen, period.

 

What kind of qualification?

 

The original qualification was land ownership which was devised as a way to exclude the large urban populations of the north from voting but ended up disenfranchising a far larger percentage of the population in the south by also excluding the tenant farmers of the large estates which owned almost all the land in the original southern states.

The southern aristocrats were deeply suspicious of universal enfranchisement while New England had a long established history of universal enfranchisement and democratic participation through its peculiar institution of the Town Meeting and the sending of popularly chosen representatives to the state legislatures.

As a compromise voting was limited to property owners and the Senate was chosen by state legislatures while representatives to the House were chosen by popular vote. The change to universal enfranchisement came not from the north but from the tenant farmers and townspeople in the south who greatly resented their disenfranchisement.

It will do no good to disenfranchise people from voting by any means.

 

so you dont see a conflict of interest at all with a person who's livelyhood is based entirely on the government and taxpayers dollars... why would that person in any way shape or form vote against anyone that would trim a government budget in anyway.

 

Got me, that would be for a Constitutional Convention to decide. I could toss out some suggestions.
Maybe people with a vested interest in the continuation of the USA:
Veterans of the Military?
Mothers with living Children?
Fathers who live with their families, showing responsibility.
People with legitimate jobs, not coupon clippers.
The POOR only
The Wealthy only
The Ones with Doctorates only,
The ones with Bachelors degrees or above.
The ones with any college degree.
The ones with a GED or high school education
The ones that never went past the third grade
Only Lawyers
Everyone but Lawyers
and on and on and on and on, there are tens of thousands of possibilities. I even like the 5 acres and a mule. Since there are only about 2 million mules that would remove MOST of the idiots from the list of voters.
Hmm and never forget, maybe only allow women to vote, and not let any man be enfranchised.

Universal Suffrage is horrible as all the founding fathers knew, which is why they intentionally avoided it.

 

We do not agree, I personally cannot believe that removing 90 percent of the idiots in this nation from having the right to vote, could do anything but good for the nation.

 

No, I understand the historical requirements, though that was an excellent analysis on your part.

I was asking my friend what kind of qualification he thought appropriate in this time and day.

 

Being an actual tax payer after EITC has been taken into account.

 

I'm not entirely sure this is wise. It leaves the least powerful of our citizens even less recourse and opens them up to being taken advantage of, like they have in the past.

 

um, so.

 

Anarcho-capitalist, I presume?

 

what if you had to be in the military for at least two years period.... if you were unable to do that then at least two years of voulenteer work of some sort before your allowed to vote?

 

You would be better off instituting IQ tests.

 

I would be interested in this. But make it four.

 

IQ test does not determine weather or not you have contributed to your country however. asking to serve in the military or voluenteer work would however.

 

Compulsory military/public service sounds so European though.

 

I've always liked the idea of 2-4 years of either military or government civil service to earn the right to vote - it forces people to take a little responsibility for their country before they have a say in it.

The "actual taxpayer" idea sounds pretty good since there is far more risk of the poor votes being bought by someone offering to steal from the rich, than the opposite. But in reality, everyone who earns a wage at least pays medicare taxes, so it would only disenfranchise people like students and housewives.

 

I'm a volunteer military veteran and do agree that military service would be excellent for every youth in the nation. But for voting, citizenship and the ability to understand an English language ballot should be enough. We can't fix stupid.

 

All things European are bad, things like Caucasians, the English language, democracy, and on and on, are all bad, because they are from Europe.

 

Shy should students and housewives be permitted to vote? Why should men be permitted to vote? Why should ANYONE be permitted to vote? That is the point, which of the infinite possibilities of voting would be better than this current nonsense we have?

 

You may not be able to fix stupid, but you could require anyone that is going to vote to SHOW on a test that they have some idea of the issues involved. That would ELIMINATE stupid, from voting.

 

And then, WHO do we next ELIMINATE from voting to improve the voting results? You perhaps? Me? Women? Blacks? No high school diploma, no vote? No college degree, no vote? No advanced degree, no vote? Where do we draw the final line after we have drawn the first line?

 

Not my point at all... We live in America, and the founders clearly separated themselves from their European ancestors and rulers for a number of reasons and began a nation that in fact states in the founding document that troops can't even be housed in private residences (without permission/payment).

Americans and the draft do not get along very well, I would think Americans and compulsory service would not get along well either.

Try and stick with the topic please.