Tea Party says you should have to own property to vote

[Anonymous]

I'm just appalled right now. I really think we might be experiencing the end of days.

[Anonymous]

Why stop with the original Constitution? Why not go back all the way to British rule?

You would get all the fun and pageantry of a monarchy.

And you would get a parliament which can:
a) pass a budget - even before the fiscal year begins!
b) ensure borrowing limits that are compatible with that budget
c) allow a government to enact the agenda on which it was elected.

Better than this bunch of ass-clowns in Congress.

[Anonymous]

It wouldn't be hard to include renters as property owners, just define property as leasehold interests of more than $x/month. So property owners and tenants of substantial property or for a long term could also vote. Cannot see anyone having a problem with that.

[Anonymous]

I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

And for all those who think that the fed could have effective oversight of this type of regime - yeah, sure. Ripe for all kinds of abuse. What if your spouse owns the house in its entirety and your a full-time SAHM? What about kids over the age of 18 that haven't bought a house and are in college. C'mon people, think it through. This isn't, and never will be, a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

And for all those who think that the fed could have effective oversight of this type of regime - yeah, sure. Ripe for all kinds of abuse. What if your spouse owns the house in its entirety and your a full-time SAHM? What about kids over the age of 18 that haven't bought a house and are in college. C'mon people, think it through. This isn't, and never will be, a good idea.

college kids definitely should not be allowed to vote. If nothing else, raise the voting age to 25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a great idea, especially in a transient area like DC. Those who are vested in the area get to make the decisions.

What about the working class people who have lived here for generations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

I think you don't understand the Constitution very well. The Bill of Rights is a phenomenal document because it protects rights not based on whether you're a nice person but regardless of whether you rich, poor, smart, dumb - whatever. It's what makes this country great. But if you want to dole out human rights based on some arbitrary list of qualifications, well, I'm sure there's a Third World country somewhere that would love to have you immigrate. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

And for all those who think that the fed could have effective oversight of this type of regime - yeah, sure. Ripe for all kinds of abuse. What if your spouse owns the house in its entirety and your a full-time SAHM? What about kids over the age of 18 that haven't bought a house and are in college. C'mon people, think it through. This isn't, and never will be, a good idea.

college kids definitely should not be allowed to vote. If nothing else, raise the voting age to 25.

But they can go fight in your stinking wars

[Anonymous]

What about folks who live in retirement homes, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

I think you don't understand the Constitution very well. The Bill of Rights is a phenomenal document because it protects rights not based on whether you're a nice person but regardless of whether you rich, poor, smart, dumb - whatever. It's what makes this country great. But if you want to dole out human rights based on some arbitrary list of qualifications, well, I'm sure there's a Third World country somewhere that would love to have you immigrate. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.

I don't think you understand the Constitution very well. When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no universal sufferage in the U.S. Voting is not, strictly speaking, a universal human right -- we do not allow children to vote, for instance -- so we are already as a society deciding who is responsible enough to vote and who isn't. I just think we need to tighten that up a bit.

Just because you feel morally superior to someone does not mean you actually know more than them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

And for all those who think that the fed could have effective oversight of this type of regime - yeah, sure. Ripe for all kinds of abuse. What if your spouse owns the house in its entirety and your a full-time SAHM? What about kids over the age of 18 that haven't bought a house and are in college. C'mon people, think it through. This isn't, and never will be, a good idea.

Only if you are committed in advance to ruling out the option. The SAHM issue is dealt with quite nicely by extending the franchise to the spouses of people who pass the property qualification test. The government already knows how much people pay in taxes and who served in the military. The example of college kids cuts my way, in my view: they are still dependents and should be treated as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

I think you don't understand the Constitution very well. The Bill of Rights is a phenomenal document because it protects rights not based on whether you're a nice person but regardless of whether you rich, poor, smart, dumb - whatever. It's what makes this country great. But if you want to dole out human rights based on some arbitrary list of qualifications, well, I'm sure there's a Third World country somewhere that would love to have you immigrate. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out.

I don't think you understand the Constitution very well. When the Bill of Rights was written, there was no universal sufferage in the U.S. Voting is not, strictly speaking, a universal human right -- we do not allow children to vote, for instance -- so we are already as a society deciding who is responsible enough to vote and who isn't. I just think we need to tighten that up a bit.

Just because you feel morally superior to someone does not mean you actually know more than them.

But I do know more than you. I know that in the United States in principle we don't apply rights based on whether you're a nice person or have a lot of money. It's got nothing to do with what was in the Constitution when it was first written. It has to do with the principle behind the rule of law. And with the changes we made to the Constitution since it was first written, the Supreme Court would never agree with your proposal. (Especially after our dismal experience of selective voting requirements during the Jim Crow era.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be better if we limited the vote to people who contributed something to society, but a property qualification is too narrow. I'd any of the following would be sufficient: 1. property qualification, 2. net taxpayer, 3. military service. Perhaps a community service alternative as well, but I would worry that is too susceptible to gaming, but I'd approve of it in principle.

And for all those who think that the fed could have effective oversight of this type of regime - yeah, sure. Ripe for all kinds of abuse. What if your spouse owns the house in its entirety and your a full-time SAHM? What about kids over the age of 18 that haven't bought a house and are in college. C'mon people, think it through. This isn't, and never will be, a good idea.

Only if you are committed in advance to ruling out the option. The SAHM issue is dealt with quite nicely by extending the franchise to the spouses of people who pass the property qualification test. The government already knows how much people pay in taxes and who served in the military. The example of college kids cuts my way, in my view: they are still dependents and should be treated as such.

Okay, i thought you were joking, but obviously you are just white and privileged. Tax paying and military service are not the only contributions people make to society. You should really move to a country where the vote is not universal and see how you like it.

[Anonymous]

Continued from 16:04- because I, for one, would be happy to see you go.