Guest shiloh357 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted April 1, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,333 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,079 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2015 I would certainly go along with property owners voting.....    I think 25 is a little high though.  21 would be more to my thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted April 1, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2015 The idea that only property owners could vote would be disastrous. I once thought about the implication of this. You would depriving all the poor (30% don't own property) from having a voice and having their concerns taken seriously. It would make US more unequal than it already is. To own a house/property is to be at least middle/higher income class. Poor people have no influence on the government other than their vote, if they are not eligible to vote due to no ownership of property, then the government would not have to be concern of their welfare at all. I don't think it is fair to have the government only take care of the specific income class and totally disregard other income class. Another issue is home ownership percentage is wildly different between ethnicities, this would also encourage the government to gear their policies to benefit a specific demographic.  The wealthy people already have disproportionate impact on the voting system based on their campaign contributions, no need to make it even more unbalanced.  The same thought process applies to eligibility to vote if you pay certain amount of taxes or the amount of votes is proportional to amount of taxes you pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 it's not only about property owners, but also those who are say, 25 and above.  Property owners and those with some life experience are more likely to have a stake in what they are voting on.  Most of those 3% you mention probably wouldn't vote anyway.  The younger voters, especially those 21 and younger voted for Obama because he was the "cool" candidate to vote for and they wanted to be part of a historical election for the first black president.   Up until that point, politics were boring and most young people are completely disengaged.   The Obama campaigns really played up to the low information voters who just wanted to vote for a black guy.  They low information folks are not used to caring about issues, so the Left did its best to shield Obama from tough questions on issues like immigration, and the economy and foreign policy.  I have spoken with young people who voted for him when they were 18 or 19 and now they have graduated college and can't find jobs but are expected to purchase healthcare that they can't afford, they are sorry they voted for him. a little life experience makes a huge difference on one's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I am also in favor of term limits for lawmakers and a huge across the board salary reduction. I would like to see being a member of congress as a bi-vocational job where it can no longer be their primary source of income.  We need to stop giving them tenure and let people with better ideas take a swing at the position. There also needs to be a constitutional amendment that bars lawmakers from constructing a law that exempts them from the law they expect other Americans to live under.   Pay raises for law makers should be by public referendum only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted April 1, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2015 it's not only about property owners, but also those who are say, 25 and above.  Property owners and those with some life experience are more likely to have a stake in what they are voting on.  Most of those 3% you mention probably wouldn't vote anyway.  The younger voters, especially those 21 and younger voted for Obama because he was the "cool" candidate to vote for and they wanted to be part of a historical election for the first black president.   Up until that point, politics were boring and most young people are completely disengaged.   The Obama campaigns really played up to the low information voters who just wanted to vote for a black guy.  They low information folks are not used to caring about issues, so the Left did its best to shield Obama from tough questions on issues like immigration, and the economy and foreign policy.  I have spoken with young people who voted for him when they were 18 or 19 and now they have graduated college and can't find jobs but are expected to purchase healthcare that they can't afford, they are sorry they voted for him. a little life experience makes a huge difference on one's perspective. To eliminate 30%+ voters is no small amount. Besides, voting participation rate is already such that people in higher income bracket vote at higher rates, there is no need to artificially cut off people of specific income group from voting.  Certainly voting age could be adjusted. In some countries it is 21. But your argument doesn't hold to scrutiny regarding eliminating voters because they are 'low information' and they vote Obama. You can' just eliminate voters because they don't vote the way you wanted them to vote. That is just ageism and bias selection. By your reasoning we could also eliminate voters of certain age and higher by making up some other excuse about how their age affects their judgement and ability to vote.  Personally I believe if you are old enough to die for your country and able to file your taxes independently you are old enough to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted April 1, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2015 I am also in favor of term limits for lawmakers and a huge across the board salary reduction. I would like to see being a member of congress as a bi-vocational job where it can no longer be their primary source of income.  We need to stop giving them tenure and let people with better ideas take a swing at the position. There also needs to be a constitutional amendment that bars lawmakers from constructing a law that exempts them from the law they expect other Americans to live under.   Pay raises for law makers should be by public referendum only. I agree that lawmakers should also be subject to the laws they make, they are not above the law. I don't know how they were able to get out of their own laws in the first place. Yes, these congress jobs should be made to be almost like a volunteer position, actually a service job than a career they could retire from. Term limits probably not that necessary, but should make them have a couple years in between the terms so they could not be a career politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted April 1, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,333 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,079 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2015 The idea that only property owners could vote would be disastrous. I once thought about the implication of this. You would depriving all the poor (30% don't own property) from having a voice and having their concerns taken seriously. It would make US more unequal than it already is. To own a house/property is to be at least middle/higher income class. Poor people have no influence on the government other than their vote, if they are not eligible to vote due to no ownership of property, then the government would not have to be concern of their welfare at all. I don't think it is fair to have the government only take care of the specific income class and totally disregard other income class. Another issue is home ownership percentage is wildly different between ethnicities, this would also encourage the government to gear their policies to benefit a specific demographic.  The wealthy people already have disproportionate impact on the voting system based on their campaign contributions, no need to make it even more unbalanced.  The same thought process applies to eligibility to vote if you pay certain amount of taxes or the amount of votes is proportional to amount of taxes you pay.  The government is not supposed to "take care" of any of us.    And the idea of equality is that we are created equal....  nothing says we stay that way....    a person who sets on his/her back side when they could be growing and working isn't equal to the person who grows and gets an education and works his back side off his whole life....   and when you make them equal, you mess with the whole driving force of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted April 1, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2015  The idea that only property owners could vote would be disastrous. I once thought about the implication of this. You would depriving all the poor (30% don't own property) from having a voice and having their concerns taken seriously. It would make US more unequal than it already is. To own a house/property is to be at least middle/higher income class. Poor people have no influence on the government other than their vote, if they are not eligible to vote due to no ownership of property, then the government would not have to be concern of their welfare at all. I don't think it is fair to have the government only take care of the specific income class and totally disregard other income class. Another issue is home ownership percentage is wildly different between ethnicities, this would also encourage the government to gear their policies to benefit a specific demographic.  The wealthy people already have disproportionate impact on the voting system based on their campaign contributions, no need to make it even more unbalanced.  The same thought process applies to eligibility to vote if you pay certain amount of taxes or the amount of votes is proportional to amount of taxes you pay.  The government is not supposed to "take care" of any of us.    And the idea of equality is that we are created equal....  nothing says we stay that way....    a person who sets on his/her back side when they could be growing and working isn't equal to the person who grows and gets an education and works his back side off his whole life....   and when you make them equal, you mess with the whole driving force of society.  I am not saying "take care" in terms of meeting people's every need. You are confusing my terms with socialism. I am talking about "taking care" in terms of addressing one's concern. I knew some of you would take it the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udx Posted April 1, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 684 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 230 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/15/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2015 Anyhow, I seriously doubt any change in voting system would make a difference at this point. There is always ways for people of influence to corrupt the government no matter what rules you make. Besides, money talks, and private individuals already controls the purse strings of the country...it doesn't matter what laws government makes.  "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." --Alexander Tytler in 1787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts