Losing our country on a majority vote, and the Right to Vote

[SpeedRacer]

I know the Book of Mormon states that as soon as the people choose wickedness over righteousness they are ripening for destruction. But that is not my point here.

I am amazed at how subtle the Gadiantons are. They use our majority vote laws to undermine us at every turn. From a sheer percentage number, you have all the Gadiantons voting for their laws to start with, add to that all of the progressive liberals who want nothing to do with liberty or God. Add to that uneducated voters who are taken in. Add to that those who are promised power or money for voting their way, and you have a majority.

I feel the beginning of the end started when we changed who had the right to vote. While I disagree with the White, Male stipulation, there was very good merit to the landowner portion. Lets break it down. Why did they make this rule? First white was a stipulation because they thought they were better than people of color. That was wrong, but was the accepted fact. We can discard that an no one will complain.

Male. Why male? They were supposed to be the leader, the more rational of the species. Women were given to deciding things on emotion and to be more rash. Not only that but they were to be home, not out deciding the future of a nation. They were supposed to agree that what their husband felt best for the country would have been decided for the household, and therefore only the one vote was needed. There was some good logic here, but society changed. I cannot say it was for the better. I am in no way a chauvinist, I just think God has a perfect order that we have defiled.

Land Owner. This stipulation was in place to make sure that you owned part of the country. That you had an honest to goodness vested interest in the well being of the country. With the law the way it is today, you would have people selling 1mmx1mm parcels of property to ensure everyone was a land owner and could vote. So that would not longer work. It is my contention that if we enacted a law that would ensure that every person that votes has a vested interest in the well being of the country, we would have lasted a lot longer. I think the best method to determine such vested interest would be to see if you have put more money into the public coffers than taken out. For example, if you have paid taxes, but received more in school grants, then you are disqualified. If we assume that everyone benefits from public infrastructure and common defense, then we limit it down to taxes paid, vs. actual dollars and benefits received that made them unavailable to other people. With this in place, even if you paid one dollar more, you would have a vested interest, and therefore have a vote that should work toward making the country a better place.

Were this enacted before the next general election, the entire government would be almost miraculously healed. The issue at this point we know is that the conservatives would benefit too greatly from such a law, so it is a pipe dream.

It has come down to the takers, versus the taken.

[Oldemandalton]

Speedracer I would go with any adult male and female property owner plus anyone who served in the armed forces.

[HeirofNumenor]

Speedracer I would go with any adult male and female property owner plus anyone who served in the armed forces.

Well that rules me out....(medically disqualified from military, and USSR ceased to exist right before I graduated from BYU, massive end-of-Cold-War draw-down).

[JohnnyL]

A lot of people have suggested that any political leader calling for war should be the first to volunteer himself or his sons to be on the front lines.

Never happened yet.

I mean in the past little while.

On the other hand, SpeedRacer...
We have many problems because it's those WITH vested interests.

[BigMomma]

I vote that any tax payer has a say... if you have a financial responsibility to this country then you have a say how it should be run.

[wiser2]

I think that we have very distinct ideas of what government should be. I believe the Declaration of Independence, where all people have God-given rights to exist and to work. The role of government then is to help facilitate that, kind of like a traffic light. I don't believe that government's role is to tax us to death. Nor do I believe that the role of a good citizen is to pay taxes, but rather to stand up for justice and goodness, opposing the tyrants that would try to tax us to death as if we are their serfs. Living here vests you, as does having your family here.

Where does liberty fit into your vision of government?

[gkearney]

I'm not sure anyone would qualify under your provisions.

[SpeedRacer]

I'm not sure anyone would qualify under your provisions.

The bottom line is if you get more than you give, you cannot vote. The object of this requirement is to make sure more people are eligible to vote. If you truly believe that no one gives more than they get, then our system is unsustainable and we continue with the Obaman agenda until we are bankrupt, taking all the things we bought and keeping them without actually paying for them. In essence we become a nation of gadiantons, protecting our thievery with the law.

[davedan]

Well, can most Americans be considered land owners of they have a mortgage? I guess if they pay property tax tthen they have a vote?


No representation wiithout taxation.

[SpeedRacer]

Well, can most Americans be considered land owners of they have a mortgage? I guess if they pay property tax tthen they have a vote?


No representation wiithout taxation.

I threw out the land owner bit. That is easily loop holed.

Your last statement is perfect. If you do not pay more in than out, you are not being truly taxed. So if you are not taxed, you get no representation. It should be representation for those who are taxed.

[Moss Man]

Here are a couple of thoughts:

Renters get to vote on bond measures that will increase property taxes. Shouldn't only the owner (or one who has the mortgage) of the property (landlord) vote when there's the potential to increase property taxes? How is it fair if the landlord votes against a bond measure that will raise his property tax and the two adults that are renting the property vote for the bond measure?

Individuals and couples who don't have children or who've never had children attend the local public school are still taxed for that school. The same people that don't want or use government services are forced by a majority vote to pay taxes i.e. fall into bondage or lose their property "rights".

John Stuart Mill calls this tyranny by the majority of voters. Frederic Bastiat would call it legalized plunder.

[SpeedRacer]

Here are a couple of thoughts:

Renters get to vote on bond measures that will increase property taxes. Shouldn't only the owner (or one who has the mortgage) of the property (landlord) vote when there's the potential to increase property taxes? How is it fair if the landlord votes against a bond measure that will raise his property tax and the two adults that are renting the property vote for the bond measure?

Individuals and couples who don't have children or who've never had children attend the local public school are still taxed for that school. The same people that don't want or use government services are forced by a majority vote to pay taxes i.e. fall into bondage or lose their property "rights".

John Stuart Mill calls this tyranny by the majority of voters. Frederic Bastiat would call it legalized plunder.

Just like the 51% of Americans who keep voting themselves benefits and don't pay taxes. The people who pay taxes can never overcome this, falling into bondage to those who don't. This is not sustainable long term. Obama knows it, and perpetuates it. It will destroy America, just as our forefathers saw. This is why I started this thread. I know there are quite a few people who are on the losing their vote side of this, but if your entitlements overcome your morals, you are lost before the country.

[Rose Garden]

Males are still the rightful leaders. Just because men and women in America today don't recognize that God-given responsibility doesn't change anything.

That said, ideally, it wouldn't be the wife blindly trusting her husband to make the right choice when he votes, it would be the husband righteously representing his whole family. A righteous man who was responsible for voting for his whole family would be wise enough to consult his wife and consider her viewpoint in political matters. It wouldn't be difficult for a wife to trust that her husband was truly voting with her interests in mind if he was seriously considering her opinion every time, even if there were times they disagreed.

That would be so much better than today's divided family voting.

Another point to consider is this: Let's say certain conditions were set to limit voters to those with a vested interest, like land ownership. Would that stop those who couldn't vote from participating in the political process? No. You could still campaign. Because of this, I think such limitations would be appropriate.