RacerX :
1.) Do you think we should go back to the rule that one needs to be a property owner to vote? I understand why they changed the rule when they did, but wouldn’t it be a good thing to go back to now that there are so many looking for hand outs with nothing at stake, while on the other hand hard working tax payers risk much, much more?
2.) Stirring the pot even more…During the last election, 40% of women were undecided, then one night on national TV Gore kissed his wife on stage. The next day, polls showed that of those 40% undecided, roughly 75% of them changed threir opinion to vote for Gore…citing his romantic kiss as what changed their mind. I would think this embarrassing for the average woman voter, but with this in mind…should women still have the right to vote?
ultrasound technician
OK, OK, before the hate e-mails come…the 1st question is real for debate, the 2nd is just stirring the pot a bit. Try to have a great day, and don’t let anybody ruin it far ya…including me! 
Related posts:
- Possible setback for women’s rights in Iran, your thoughts? Jimmy : The whole presidential election was a big farce....
- Did McCain pick Palin to get more women voters or to get on the religious rights good side? mintman123 : Did McCain pick Palin to get more women...
- Why do republican voters vote based on anti Abortion rights? Turtle D : Bush is pro-life. He ran a campaign...
- What voters was McCain aiming at when he pick Palin? Cherry D : Can’t be women voters, most women voters...
- women voters, what would happen? Sarsek : if a guy, and he has never taken...
{ 4 comments }
I’d rather have a test for voting. Anybody that can pass the test gets to vote (over 18 of course). The test would be basic questions on how the government works (how many branches are there, what are checks and balances, etc.). Probably also some basic math and economics (if sally has $100 and the government takes $20 in taxes, how much money does sally have left). I think this would be a way to ensure that people that are voting understand what they are doing and it isn’t base on something arbitrary, but on their actual knowledge.
Ignoring the pot stirrer, it would be wrong to disenfranchise evryone who does not own property. This would place the vote in the hands of one group, and that group does have its’ own agendas. There is no way to match those who are “hard working taxpayers” with land ownership.
1. Not everyone can afford to own their own property, and furthermore, are you referring to those that outright own the property or ones that are still paying on the property? If outright ownership is required, then we will no longer be a republic, but more of a monarchy. If partial ownership is required, we are creating a larger class divide then exists now, which would lead to an American revolution that likens us to Myan Mar.
2. I don’t agree and since this is just to stir the pot, I’ll leave it at that.
No, because voting is supposed to be a right for all american citizens, despite their finical status.
Sure. Some people vote for stupid reasons. Some don’t vote at all, which is even stupider. But I know a man who only voted for Bush in the last election because his parents told him to. Are you going to ban young men voting?
You have to take the good with the bad in voting. Smart people will vote. Stupid people will vote. Rich people will vote. Poor people will vote. Men will vote, women will vote, whites will vote, blacks will vote, gays will vote, homophobics will vote. Get over it, and just see what group voted the most!