Should 6+ figure landowners get 2 votes in elections?

[Spungo]

Ok, so you think that welfare people think, "I am on welfare, I will vote for people who let me stay on welfare"

Yes? The "welfare trap" is a very well understood problem. In a market economy, your wealth is proportional to how much you work and how valuable that work is. Working 20 hours at minimum wage pays twice as much as working 10 hours at minimum wage. In the liberal dream of a command economy, work and rewards have little or no correlation. People get off welfare and get a minimum wage job, but the government cuts their benefits so they end up making the same amount of money or maybe even less money for doing infinitely more work. People in the ghetto are not completely retarded. They see how stupid the system is, and they choose not to participate. No sane person will work when there's nothing to be gained from working. This is what separates liberals from conservatives. Conservatives look at the ghettos and conclude that ghetto culture is a result of the reward and punishment system those people are exposed to. The government takes away benefits if a woman lives with a man, so ghetto women of all races and ages choose not to get married or live with their baby daddies. The system generally destroys men in divorce court, so men "going their own way" choose not to get married. The government rewards people for having more kids, so women choose not to use birth control. Liberals have a totally different view of the situation. Liberals think poor people choose not to work because they're lazy and stupid. Liberals think mothers choose not to get birth control because they're lazy and stupid. Almost everything the liberals do is somehow coming from the perspective that the choices people make are not in any way related to the reward and punishment systems in place.

(btw, people on welfare don't really fare all that well, but anyone with half a brain understands this)

And whose fault is that?

Btw, love the openly fascist admission to want to deny votes for poor people. Your (great) grandparents who fought in WWII would probably also love to hear you say that to them. Yeah. Bet they would.

I'm guessing you've never actually talked to a WW2, Korean War, or Vietnam War veteran. Military service and fascism are like two peas in a pod, so I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that people in the military would be against fascism. Fascism was started by Benito Mussolini in Italy. What was the first thing he did? Ramp up the military. Adolf Hitler started fascism in Germany. What was the first thing he did? Ramp up the military. America became fascist some time around the 1950s. What was the first thing we did? Ramp up the military.
Let's try a simple test together.
1. Young people who have never served in the military are typically (liberal/conservative). Choose one.
2. Old people who have served in the military are typically (liberal/conservative). Choose one.
3. General Dwight Eisenhower, supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe, was (democrat/republican). Choose one.
4. MSNBC is America's left wing propaganda source while Fox News is America's right wing propaganda source. Which one of them has an audience with an average age of 67 years old?
5. President Reagan was very open about his support of fascism and jingoism. During which war was he enlisted in the military but classified for limited service due to his being nearsighted?

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't see many six fingered land lords which leaves me wondering if maybe those are only common in the South.

 

[JEDI]

I don't see many six fingered land lords which leaves me wondering if maybe those are only common in the South.

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

 

[nehalem256]

Ok, so you think that welfare people think, "I am on welfare, I will vote for people who let me stay on welfare" (btw, people on welfare don't really fare all that well, but anyone with half a brain understands this), logic therefore dictates you also think - but apparantly don't see any problems with - rich people thinking "I am rich, I will vote for people who make me richer".

If "don't really fare all that well" means better than probably 80% of people in the world...

Also, people who work a minimum wage job probably "don't really fare all that well"(again assuming that better than 80% of people in the world isn't good). And what kind of job do you think someone on welfare is going to be getting?:hmm:

Btw, love the openly fascist admission to want to deny votes for poor people. Your (great) grandparents who fought in WWII would probably also love to hear you say that to them. Yeah. Bet they would.

Evidence that the Nazi's denied voting to poor people?

 

[DominionSeraph]

I liked one of Stansberry's ideas. He jokingly threw out the idea of not being able to vote if you receive any kind of government assistance. The logic is that being a recipient a government cheese and having the ability to vote would be a conflict of interest.

You don't know what government is, do you?

 

[Scotteq]

I've heard tell that the historically accepted compromise figure was 3/5ths

 

[brandonb]

I believe that those who contribute to the system should get the opportunity to vote.

If I had my way, this is how it works:

1 years of working (consecutive): Unemployment.
5 years of working: Voting rights.
10 years of working: Short term welfare.
15 years of working: Disability.
20 years of working: Healthcare.
25 years of working: Eligibility for Social Security.

The more you put into the system, the more you can take out. If you don't contribute anything, you get nothing in return. I'm all for social services, but only to those who put into the pot.

Just my opinion. Hoping it will catch on someday.

 

[shira]

..... wut? So a guy like Bill Gates should get very few votes because most of his wealth is in the form of investments, but rappers should get millions of votes because they exclusively hold cash and never invest any of it?

I liked one of Stansberry's ideas. He jokingly threw out the idea of not being able to vote if you receive any kind of government assistance. The logic is that being a recipient a government cheese and having the ability to vote would be a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest, in my opinion, is why countries like Greece and states like California are doomed to fail. When half the voting population is on some form of welfare, it's impossible to cut any kind of spending even when the solvency of the government is at risk. Humans are just cunty animals. "I'm going to hell and taking you with me" is the motto of humanity. People would prefer to see the entire country go bankrupt and sold to the Chinese than take a 10% cut to medicare.

I also liked the proposed voter ID laws. Government ID is required for having a job or opening a bank account. If you don't have a job or a bank account, it's probably best that you don't vote. Another interesting fact: Detroit has a 47% illiteracy rate, but these people are still allowed to vote. You could hand out leaflets clearly explaining how fucked our budget is, and it would have no effect because voters literally cannot read it.

Who doesn't receive government "assistance?"

Children go to public school? ==> government assistance.

Drive your car on public roads? ==> government assistance.

Law enforcements patrols neighborhoods and busts criminals in your area? ==> government assistance.

Breathe air free of deadly pollutants? ==> government assistance.

So I guess this means that no one votes.

 

[nehalem256]

Who doesn't receive government "assistance?"

Children go to public school? ==> government assistance.

Drive your car on public roads? ==> government assistance.

Law enforcements patrols neighborhoods and busts criminals in your area? ==> government assistance.

Breathe air free of deadly pollutants? ==> government assistance.

So I guess this means that no one votes.

Way to be a dense.

Its a pretty simple idea. If you fail so much at running your own life that society has to feed you (and likely your bastard children as well)* then maybe you shouldn't have a say in how to run anyone else's life.

I would think that liberals would jump at this idea since according to them conservatives are a bunch of retards that have to wear Velcro shoes because tying their shoes is beyond them.

So obviously only liberals would be left to vote right? 😛

*http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

See that as an obvious example of someone that should never be allowed to step near a voting booth.

 

[Spungo]

I've heard tell that the historically accepted compromise figure was 3/5ths

The south wanted blacks to be counted as humans. The north wanted blacks to be counted as farm animals. The political power given to a region strongly depends on how many humans live there. Counting blacks as humans would give the south more political power. The two sides split the difference and agreed to count blacks as 60% human, 40% farm animal.

 

[Siddhartha]

..... wut? So a guy like Bill Gates should get very few votes because most of his wealth is in the form of investments, but rappers should get millions of votes because they exclusively hold cash and never invest any of it?

I liked one of Stansberry's ideas. He jokingly threw out the idea of not being able to vote if you receive any kind of government assistance. The logic is that being a recipient a government cheese and having the ability to vote would be a conflict of interest. This conflict of interest, in my opinion, is why countries like Greece and states like California are doomed to fail. When half the voting population is on some form of welfare, it's impossible to cut any kind of spending even when the solvency of the government is at risk. Humans are just cunty animals. "I'm going to hell and taking you with me" is the motto of humanity. People would prefer to see the entire country go bankrupt and sold to the Chinese than take a 10% cut to medicare.

I also liked the proposed voter ID laws. Government ID is required for having a job or opening a bank account. If you don't have a job or a bank account, it's probably best that you don't vote. Another interesting fact: Detroit has a 47% illiteracy rate, but these people are still allowed to vote. You could hand out leaflets clearly explaining how fucked our budget is, and it would have no effect because voters literally cannot read it.

Tell you what. You should give up your right to vote before you disenfranchise other people.

 

[1prophet]

to combat all those renters who vote for the politians who promosies them the most $ out of the public treasury so their safety net is a hammock?

How about state and federal elections everybody qualified can vote, local elections where property taxes can be affected only property owners can vote.

Senior citizens and other people on fixed incomes living in their own homes shouldn't have to face the prospect of losing their homes,

because non property owners who have no skin in the town like college students could vote for substantial increase in property taxes to fund some local slick politician's pet project using college votes and not have to worry about the repercussions on the full time residents who do.

 

[shira]

Way to be a dense.

Its a pretty simple idea. If you fail so much at running your own life that society has to feed you (and likely your bastard children as well)* then maybe you shouldn't have a say in how to run anyone else's life.

I would think that liberals would jump at this idea since according to them conservatives are a bunch of retards that have to wear Velcro shoes because tying their shoes is beyond them.

So obviously only liberals would be left to vote right? 😛

*http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

See that as an obvious example of someone that should never be allowed to step near a voting booth.

What don't you inform us what - in principle - the difference is between the government spending money so that your children can go to school and the government spending money so that your children can eat? In both cases, you're costing the rest of the taxpayers money.

If you really can't understand this, then consider: If everyone sent their children to private schools that they paid for themselves, then the government would save a huge amount of money. So public education is every bit as much a form of "government assistance" as food stamps is.

So I repeat: Under the principle advocated, no one should be allowed to vote.

 

[homebrew2ny]

Anyone who thinks that giving 'those who have' more votes over 'those who have not' is a good idea, you need to get your head checked. The whole idea is so wrong I really blame the parents and education system for anyone who thinks that it would be a 'good idea'...

 

[Acanthus]

What the conservatives in this thread don't realize is this:

History says if you don't take care of the poor, you not only get significantly more poor, you also get more disease, poverty, suffering, and most importantly to the rich, violent crime.

Use your damn head. Support a working society.

Sure it isn't fair that some people milk the system and you have to pay taxes. It is equally unfair that some of us get to sit on Reddit all day and drag in $70k/yr.

Deal with it.

Don't like the system? Come up with a better one that isn't "i want more for me and less for everyone else". You're too short sighted to realize that that mentality ruins the economic environment you live in, and DIRECTLY affects you.

 

[IronWing]

How about state and federal elections everybody qualified can vote, local elections where property taxes can be affected only property owners can vote.

Senior citizens and other people on fixed incomes living in their own homes shouldn't have to face the prospect of losing their homes,

because non property owners who have no skin in the town like college students could vote for substantial increase in property taxes to fund some local slick politician's pet project using college votes and not have to worry about the repercussions on the full time residents who do.

Renters pay property tax. Seniors bitching about property tax should be taken with the same seriousness as farmers bitching about the weather.

 

[JEDI]

Anyone who thinks that giving 'those who have' more votes over 'those who have not' is a good idea, you need to get your head checked. The whole idea is so wrong I really blame the parents and education system for anyone who thinks that it would be a 'good idea'...

needs more esplain

 

[Doppel]

No, but I do believe there should be a basic civics test required to vote. If you cannot specify at least some high level points of the various sides you're expected to vote on, how dare you take part?

 

[Scotteq]

I've heard tell that the historically accepted compromise figure was 3/5ths

The south wanted blacks to be counted as humans. The north wanted blacks to be counted as farm animals. The political power given to a region strongly depends on how many humans live there. Counting blacks as humans would give the south more political power. The two sides split the difference and agreed to count blacks as 60% human, 40% farm animal.

Yup - during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.

Of course, outright slavery was abolished in 1865, when the guns officially went silent. And then both reaffirmed and clarified a hundred years later when we got the Civil Rights Act (President Johnson never seems to get enough credit for browbeating Congress to pass it so he could sign). A few more Supreme Court cases later and we don't judge based solely on color any more... Officially...

But since my earlier offhand comment seems to need some explanation: In pointing out the three fifths compromise with respect to the OP, I am drawing the parallel between his idea and the similar historical basis rooted in American slavery. So instead of color, we use socioeconomic status - drawing an arbitrary line (2x national average, for example) whereby individuals who cannot meet that standard for whatever reason are awarded with lofty motivation in the quest to improve themselves via the honorable titles of "Wage Slave" and "Salary N*gger".

And after all: Isn't it only fair that those people who aren't able to attain the standards our overlords have designed for themselves *should* be treated as three parts human and 2 parts farm animal.

Clear now? Or am I still unreasonably Obtuse?

 

[Scotteq]

Tapatalk is annoying sometimes...

 

[FaaR]

Yes? The "welfare trap" is a very well understood problem.

Yeah that may be so, but my point was that the OP considered poors (alledgedly) voting in a way which favors them specifically (implied at the expense of others) a problem, but apparantly did not consider rich voting the same way (well proven to be at the expense of others) not a problem.

Military service and fascism are like two peas in a pod, so I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that people in the military would be against fascism.

Thing is, people who fought in WWII weren't carreer military by and large, but rather drafted from the general population. Not even in germany did the nazis ever gain a majority of peoples' opinions or votes, and many who did vote for them undoubtedly did so out of protest against what preceeded the nazis. Hindenburg then proclaimed Hitler chancellor, and the latter promptly and unilaterally did away with democracy, despite having only ever won ~30% of the votes in any election.

I haven't actually seen any research on the subject, but I still seriously doubt even 30% of the americans who fought in WWII were fascist (for starters, the US had no mainstream fascist party for people to flock to - closest might have been the KKK I suppose, which was non-political by and large I believe and probably not really what anyone would call mainstream either), and I seriously doubt that very many troops of the brits, canadians or any of the other allied nations were fascist as well.

I'll skip your test because we're drifting further and further off topic here and this post is long enough as it is...

 

[TheSlamma]

They should also get the votes of their maids and butlers too!

 

[bshole]

`

 

[QuantumPion]

No but I think only people who pay net zero or positive taxes should be able to vote.

 

[nehalem256]

What don't you inform us what - in principle - the difference is between the government spending money so that your children can go to school and the government spending money so that your children can eat? In both cases, you're costing the rest of the taxpayers money.

I think the most obvious answer is that in one case children would die. And in one case they would not.

And on a more theoretical level public schooling comes from people banding together and deciding having all of their children educated is good.

No one banded together and decided that Mary Sue having 3 bastard kids with 3 incarcerated felons was a good thing.

The difference is mutual obligation. You are advocating for a world where some people have obligations and some people do not. What I am saying is if you don't want any obligations then you do not get any power.