Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4547

Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said denying the right to vote to those who do not own property “makes a lot of sense” during a weekly radio program.

“The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote,” Phillips said. “It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote.”

“Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today,” he continued. “But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community.”
I disagree, I don't think property owners would make any better voters than non property owners. I also think the idea that only vets or other people who have done civil service should be allowed to vote is stupid.

What do you think?
Sturgeon
Member
+488|3902|Flintshire
What about people that rent?
https://bf3s.com/sigs/3dda27c6d0d9b22836605b152b9d214b99507f91.png
Macbeth
Banned
+2,443|4547

Renters would not be allowed to vote since they lack property.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4220|foggy bottom
we should only let wealthy white males the right to vote
Tu Stultus Es
Sturgeon
Member
+488|3902|Flintshire
Surely that's a pretty big percentage of voters, would only the one person who owns the home be allowed to vote, what about spouses, children eligible to vote still living at home?

The idea is pretty stupid imo
https://bf3s.com/sigs/3dda27c6d0d9b22836605b152b9d214b99507f91.png
-CARNIFEX-[LOC]
Da Blooze
+111|5615
In large metropolitan areas where home ownership is nigh unheard of because each square foot of space is prohibitively expensive to "own", you will then have literally millions upon millions of individuals (many of whom are productive members of society) who cannot vote because they can't actually afford to own the property that they live in.

Derp.


A lot of the mechanisms by which our government operates made sense in the 18th century.  That's not always the case today.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/12516/Bitch%20Hunter%20Sig.jpg
lowing
Banned
+1,662|5612|USA
Been through this before, there is no constitutional "right" to vote. But for the sake of discussion we will say there is, and to that, I say, non-felon law abiding citizens have the opportunity to vote. Point being, if you do not have respect for the law or society or your fellow citizens, you should have no voice in its course.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-25 10:57:53)

jord
Member
+2,382|5639|The North, beyond the wall.
What differance would it make? It'd be the same 2 party's in power either way.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|5461|so randum
meh in fairness we used to see labour/conservatives near enough the same. then lib dems (didn't actually win) but gained some short-lived relevance.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5372|'Murka

eleven bravo wrote:

we should only let wealthy white males the right to vote
^This.

OK. Srsly. That guy's an idiot.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
jsnipy
...
+3,275|5484|...

I think citizens should only be allowed to vote. Read Starship Troopers.

With property owner ship only the balance of power could be shifted to easily.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4319|London, England
That doesn't work. Everyone pays property taxes whether it's direct taxation or indirect via rent.

Now, if he was advocating only people with positive income, i.e. they actually pay more in tax than they get back, being allowed to vote, I'd agree with him. Why? Not necessarily to exclude people from the voting process, but as a means of forcing an expansion of the tax base. No one should get a free ride.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|5406|The Land of Scott Walker
No.  Only gun owners should vote.
Stimey
­
+786|5081|Ontario | Canada
Only highschool graduates.
Would at least prevent some of the retards (read: monkeys who only vote obama cause hes black) from voting for a person they know nothing about.
­
­
­
­
­
­
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|4140|Sydney

Macbeth wrote:

Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips said denying the right to vote to those who do not own property “makes a lot of sense” during a weekly radio program.

“The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote,” Phillips said. “It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote.”

“Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today,” he continued. “But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community.”
I disagree, I don't think property owners would make any better voters than non property owners. I also think the idea that only vets or other people who have done civil service should be allowed to vote is stupid.

What do you think?
I think it's undemocratic to restrict who gets to vote in such a manner. 

It also makes me think their target demographic is concerned solely about home ownership and their policies aren't addressing other parts of society. With the current state of the US housing market their demographic would be shrinking, would it not?

In a nutshell: it's a dumb suggestion.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,897|5733|USA

Should only property owners be allowed to vote?
No.

Leave it at universal suffrage, but no proxy-voting for children or on behalf of absentees.
Miggle
FUCK UBISOFT
+1,409|5703|FUCK UBISOFT

what about the people under 18 who get the shit end of the stick and can't do shit about it?
https://i.imgur.com/86fodNE.png
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|4350|Fuck this.

Stingray24 wrote:

No.  Only gun owners should vote.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|4220|foggy bottom
if you own two guns can you get two votes?
Tu Stultus Es
ROGUEDD
BF2s. A Liberal Gang of Faggots.
+452|4350|Fuck this.

eleven bravo wrote:

if you own two guns can you get two votes?
Number of cool looking guns is directly proportionate to the number of votes you get.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,897|5733|USA

Miggle wrote:

what about the people under 18 who get the shit end of the stick and can't do shit about it?
That's another argument. Personally, I think old enough for a driver's license is old enough to vote. I'd like to see someone show proof that political decisions made at 18 are necessarily more sound than those made at, say, 16.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,914|5593|949

it would be interesting if it was against the law to maintain any demographic information on voters.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5542|the dank(super) side of Oregon

ROGUEDD wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

if you own two guns can you get two votes?
Number of cool looking guns is directly proportionate to the number of votes you get.
i win, dibert loses.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,734|5067|eXtreme to the maX
Would the number of votes be proportional to the number of properties, the square feet of land, or the feudal income received from your serfs?
Maybe it would be easier just to hand votes down father to son, better still just make them all the gift of the king.

Another point, wasn't this what the US revolution was about in the first place?

Reciprocity wrote:

i win, dibert loses.
How cool  they look always triumphs over functionality, except IRL.
#FreeBritney
Reciprocity
Member
+721|5542|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Dilbert_X wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

i win, dibert loses.
How cool  they look always triumphs over functionality, except IRL.
lol. lighten the fuck up.

Another point, wasn't this what the US revolution was about in the first place?
no.  that whole thing was about rich white guys and taxes.  the revolution gave unlanded men nothing.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2011-07-26 18:53:04)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard