Only White, Protestant, Land-owning Males should get to vote.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Should only property owners be allowed to vote?
anyone who pays income tax
18 reduces the number of idiots voting based on the fact you are skipping everyone in the 16-17 age group. That said. People probably shouldn't vote until they are 30, but the whole dying for your country thing kinda fucks that up.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
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.Miggle wrote:
what about the people under 18 who get the shit end of the stick and can't do shit about it?
Agreed.11 Bravo wrote:
anyone who pays income tax
Renters pay taxes as well. So no.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Doesn't explain why half the 50+ people I talk to are closed-minded, media-mimicking cattle. I'd as soon trust the judgment of a 12-year-old.Commie Killer wrote:
18 reduces the number of idiots voting based on the fact you are skipping everyone in the 16-17 age group. That said. People probably shouldn't vote until they are 30, but the whole dying for your country thing kinda fucks that up.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
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.Miggle wrote:
what about the people under 18 who get the shit end of the stick and can't do shit about it?
Take away my right to vote and I'll refuse to fight for yours.
Come on, there has to be at least one of you out there that agrees with him.
So Macbeth wants to go back to that?Reciprocity wrote:
no. that whole thing was about rich white guys and taxes. the revolution gave unlanded men nothing.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
That would limit it to only about 53% of eligibles.11 Bravo wrote:
anyone who pays income tax
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Not only should everyone (citizen) be allowed to vote, they should be required to.
That makes sense. Have even more ignorant and indifferent voters. What do you propose the punishment be for not voting? Prison sentences? Large fines? Seriously, that's just about the most asinine idea ever proposed in DST (and there have been a lot of terrible ideas). Congrats.DrunkFace wrote:
Not only should everyone (citizen) be allowed to vote, they should be required to.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
its mandatory in aus
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I just saw that on wiki. What a bunch of horseshit.m3thod wrote:
its mandatory in aus
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah I was gonna say it's the law to vote there. Which is a shame really, considering it's such a nice country that many brits emmigrate to every year.
Fuck mandatory voting, what's the point?
Fuck mandatory voting, what's the point?
-if you own gun, you may vote
-get paid to vote
-vote via facebook
-get paid to vote
-vote via facebook
Yay!!! Multiple votes for multiple properties.Dilbert_X wrote:
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?How cool they look always triumphs over functionality, except IRL.Reciprocity wrote:
i win, dibert loses.
That's the way it works in Homeowner's Association communities.
oO I like the multiple properties vote ideaIlocano wrote:
Yay!!! Multiple votes for multiple properties.Dilbert_X wrote:
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?How cool they look always triumphs over functionality, except IRL.Reciprocity wrote:
i win, dibert loses.
That's the way it works in Homeowner's Association communities.
also with the sq foot of land, I've got some land in Georgia .... we don't go by sq ft with the size I've got ... we go by acres and I got just under 800 .... what voting privileges do I get
I bought 1 square foot of land in Scotland, so I am officially a Scottish Laird. If only land owners could vote here, I would buy an acreage and then divide it out into 1 square foot lots, and sell them. Then I am rich and everyone can still vote. Win-win.
Ridiculous.
We have such a craptastic turn-out of voters right now, why would anyone even think about limiting that by such an idiotic standard?
Oh sorry New York City, you all rent. No vote for you.
Oh sorry downtown area that pays 5 times more for your apartment than I do for my house. You are a lower caste now.
Hey you... Can't read or write? Dropped out of elementary school? Well... You OWN that meth house, right? Cool, let me show you your voting location.
Ridiculous.
We have such a craptastic turn-out of voters right now, why would anyone even think about limiting that by such an idiotic standard?
Oh sorry New York City, you all rent. No vote for you.
Oh sorry downtown area that pays 5 times more for your apartment than I do for my house. You are a lower caste now.
Hey you... Can't read or write? Dropped out of elementary school? Well... You OWN that meth house, right? Cool, let me show you your voting location.
lololotrollJay wrote:
That makes sense. Have even more ignorant and indifferent voters. What do you propose the punishment be for not voting? Prison sentences? Large fines? Seriously, that's just about the most asinine idea ever proposed in DST (and there have been a lot of terrible ideas). Congrats.DrunkFace wrote:
Not only should everyone (citizen) be allowed to vote, they should be required to.
- Compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. If everybody must vote, then restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged.
- Compulsory voting may encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. Since they are voting anyway they may take more of an interest into the nature of the politicians they may vote for, rather than simply opting out. This means candidates need to appeal to a more general audience, rather than a small section of the community.
- Increase in voting participation may stimulate stronger participation and interest in other political activities.
- No large campaign funds are needed to goad votes to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases
- Compulsory voting acts as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population
- Victorious candidate or party clearly represents a majority of the population, not only politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion. This helps ensure that governments do not neglect sections of society that are less active politically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
You may think it's all bullshit, but there's only one general "politics" thread on these boards and its for Australia.
That's nice, I can read wikipedia as well. You can't even produce an argument in your own words as to its benefits. Also, your country has roughly the same population as my State.
Last edited by Jay (2011-07-27 16:02:05)
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
That has nothing do with this topic.Jay wrote:
Also, your country has roughly the same population as my State.
cant you disagree without being so disagreeable
Tu Stultus Es
It's always the fall back response of Americans who have nothing worth saying.Macbeth wrote:
That has nothing do with this topic.Jay wrote:
Also, your country has roughly the same population as my State.
Sure it does. What works for a nation of 21 million would not necessarily work for a nation of 350 million. Do you want compulsory voting? I sure as shit don't. If people care about an election they vote. If they don't vote, and they get stuck with a government they despise, they'll be more inclined to vote in the next election. If they still don't care, fuck em. The last thing I want is a pure majority rule form of government. Our system is just as democratic, it just doesn't require the village idiot to cast his vote.Macbeth wrote:
That has nothing do with this topic.Jay wrote:
Also, your country has roughly the same population as my State.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Should only property owners be allowed to vote?