Posted on 08/25/2008 2:11:01 PM PDT by mainestategop
Since when do corporations vote? We’re talking about individuals who to the best of my knowledge all get the same automatic exemptions. If I am wrong let me know....I will get to my accountant and tear him a new one!!
There should be a test given before anyone can register to vote. The test will be a sensible one, multiple choice. You need to know about how the government works, how our constitution works, why we have the freedom we have ETC. People who support gun control, speech codes, protest zoning, socialism, compulsory public schooling won't be eligible. When they get educated, when they learn to be wiser, then they can vote.
So here, you're looking to disqualify people from voting based on their views on certain issues.
Owning land is a legitimate requirement I think, but race (and gender for that matter) is obviously not.
That's why we are a republic not a democracy(Mob rule) We don't want a situation where two wolves and one sheep decide what they want for lunch.
In the past, for example in the early years of the Republic, property qualifications were often required to exercise the frachise to ensure voters had a stake in the country and were qualified to take part in civil society. This was at a time when America’s economy was primarily based on agriculture.
Today, that is no longer true. I am using annual income as a way to roughly test that soemone has a stake in the economy and well being of the country. The amount someone earns is used as a kind of proxy for the person’s involvement in the community.
Several months ago I presented a more detailed discussion of this idea, eg, giving more votes to the military based on years of service, etc.
But like I said, it’s utopiab.
Voting criteria was establshed by the States, and the criteria varied. New Jersey gave women the right to vote in 1790 (but took it away in 1807).
The Constitution, as originally drafted, did not establish voting criteria, AFAIK.
Also keep in mind it's not quite designed to be full proof. Thats one other thing I want to emphasize.
If you haven't that much acumen under your belt, your vote does more harm than good.
I don’t know. From what I understand, land is pricey and one would have to be fairly well off to own much. In this day and age, that would only add more fuel to the “Rich are evil” class war.
Of course these people didn't get subsidies and special favors either. Also it was limited to certain states that did this since yes the economy was based on agricultural property.
What it comes down to, really, is your definition of what constitutes an anti-constititional view.
Which is a totally slippery standard open to endless abuse, depending on who is in power.
On the federal level, many of the things mainestategop mentions (gun control, speech codes, protest zoning, public school, welfare, etc.) are unconstitutional unless by amendment. A paradox in this is that someone has the right to vote for a politician that proposes completely illegal measures simply because he wants them (unless he expressedly states that he would bring these things by amendment). It would be interesting if politicians that supported unconstituional measures without passing an amendment would be ineligible to run for office. Just throwing stuff out there.
Ah yes, the good old days when States had rights and Big Brother wasn’t controlling everything.
It isn’t that slippery... the Constitution is just ignored by and large so people don’t actually know what’s in it. Most people think separation of church and state is a phrase in the Constitution.
In other countries voting is mandatory and subject to fines.
Vote, its the LAW!
As I said, it isn't perfect and there still will be evil people who will abuse the system but hopefully what I suggested is a step in the right direction.
Talk about a slippery slope. In order to limit governmental power, you're proposing we allow the government to bar people from voting based on their personal views. Kinda ironic...
I’m not totally against the idea of giving more votes based on this or that, but I think they should be capped relatively early. The problem is it’s hard to assign a value to service or “stake in the economy”. Does this act deserve 1 vote or 1.7? Does military service for 4 years equal 2 votes?
And yes, like you said, it’s utopian so ultimately we’re debating something that in all likelihood will never happen. Kind of interesting if you think about it.
One of the great benefits of having states is that they not only know their citizens better than the feds, but states provide competition if you will to other states. If you don’t approve of your state’s policies, there are always other places to go. The competition (ideally) roots out the worst ideas and brings forth the best (or at least a range of good ones).
In this day and age, taking voting rights away from ANYONE would be rejected by the vast majority of people, regardless of its merits.
I agree though, owning land probably isn’t the best requirement because of tenants and renting apartments and such. It would exclude too many people now that I think about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.