Reasonable limitations on voting

[Rose Garden]

I was discussing appropriate limitations on voting with a friend today and that got me thinking about what would be the best limitations to set on who gets to vote. From what I understand, when the nation was formed, it was mainly landowners who were allowed to vote. The reasoning was that they were the ones who had a vested interest in the nation. This was probably fairly reasonable since it seems like land was pretty easy to get your hands on at the time.

I believe that we've been focusing on the wrong criteria when it comes to who we allow to vote. By focusing on gender, age, and race, we are failing to address the question of whether a person can be trusted to make a reasonable decision in deciding who to vote for. I believe that it would be ideal to set criteria that addresses that level of responsibility of a person rather than characteristics that a person is born with.

My friend suggested that a person should be required to serve in the military before they are allowed to vote. I disagree both because I don't believe that honors gender differences and because I believe in a militia over a standing army. But it certainly got the mental juices flowing. What do you guys think? What criteria do you believe would be reasonable to set on voters?

[djinwa]

Certainly not military time. As a former officer, I saw that most military members are in it for more government benefits.

We elect leaders who take an oath to defend the Constitution. Seems reasonable that voters should pass a test on the Constitution, which exists to place limits on government, both in domestic and military matters.

Of course, the powers that be will never allow such a thing.

[inho]

From what I understand, when the nation was formed, it was mainly landowners who were allowed to vote. The reasoning was that they were the ones who had a vested interest in the nation.

I understand the logic behind this reasoning. However, I see there some problems too. Slavery is an obvious example. Were the landowners really thinking about the best interest of the slaves?

I think similar problems arise with any limitation. In my opinion, the person who votes should understand who the system works. I mean, what are the things that the people elected in the voting are able to and responsible for doing. In an ideal situation this is all adults. Yet, every time we have local elections, I see people asking questions that have nothing to do with the election, things that are related to the parliament instead of local government. Then I wonder, if those people should be able to vote at all. However, I do not think that it would be good to test the knowledge of the voters either. Otherwise we may end up in a situation where some group is totally unrepresented, like the slave were.

[Silver]

Break this issue down to its most basic elements. Should people who habitually pay no taxes have the right to vote in a election where one candidate promises to give them something, anything, say a cell phone, paid for by the rest of the country/state/city? While it is certainly the case that some non-land owners pay taxes, all land owners must pay city/county/utilities/school taxes or lose their property. (See: allodial title.)

However, preventing people who are net recipients of government largesse from benefitting at the expense of others is really a tiny issue compared to the corporations which send an army of lobbyists to Washington, DC, or to the Statehouse, to beg for some sort of benefit for their employer. The taxes avoided by these corporations is much greater than the amount the government spends on food stamps, etc. It's called corporate welfare. OK, fine. Then while these corporations are avoiding taxes, they can't lobby the government. That's the way to keep a company from voting.

Of course, the crony capitalists, the corporatists, will find a sneaky way around any rule made for them because the slimy creatures in Washington want those perks of office that the corporations give them. So half the citizenry end up paying a disproportionate share of all the nonsense that comes from the swamp. When is somebody going to make a poster that says: Taxation without representation! Or throw some tea into a harbor?

[Robin Hood]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

[Ezra]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

If if want the majority of wolfs voting what's for dinner then That's a great idea.

Following the mistakes of history is not a good idea. We are quickly going downhill and it is currently that way.

I think the original idea is still the best. Land ownership. Any responsible driven person has the ability to buy land. But I would add that there be a constitutionally test that needs to be passed befor one can vote each year.

[Rose Garden]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

Define "adult."

[Rose Garden]

Break this issue down to its most basic elements. Should people who habitually pay no taxes have the right to vote in a election where one candidate promises to give them something, anything, say a cell phone, paid for by the rest of the country/state/city? While it is certainly the case that some non-land owners pay taxes, all land owners must pay city/county/utilities/school taxes or lose their property. (See: allodial title.)

However, preventing people who are net recipients of government largesse from benefitting at the expense of others is really a tiny issue compared to the corporations which send an army of lobbyists to Washington, DC, or to the Statehouse, to beg for some sort of benefit for their employer. The taxes avoided by these corporations is much greater than the amount the government spends on food stamps, etc. It's called corporate welfare. OK, fine. Then while these corporations are avoiding taxes, they can't lobby the government. That's the way to keep a company from voting.

Of course, the crony capitalists, the corporatists, will find a sneaky way around any rule made for them because the slimy creatures in Washington want those perks of office that the corporations give them. So half the citizenry end up paying a disproportionate share of all the nonsense that comes from the swamp. When is somebody going to make a poster that says: Taxation without representation! Or throw some tea into a harbor?

This was a point my friend made too. He said if you are receiving welfare you should not be allowed to vote. I agree it's a conflict of interest, but I also realized that that applies to a broad spectrum of people, including corporations, as you pointed out.

[Robin Hood]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

Define "adult."

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?

[Silver]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

Define "adult."

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?

When America's founding fathers put this law into effect, they were very much aware of the conditions in Europe with her many disenfranchised people. A lifetime of serfdom was the fate of many. In America, almost anyone who had a strong work ethic could buy a piece of land with the added bonus of becoming a voter. An owner of land would obviously be interested in any taxes applied to that land and would jealously guard against government overstepping its bounds through onerous taxation. It is through increasingly higher taxation rates that free citizens are gradually yet surely reduced to slavery. At least, that's where we used to be. Now most people don't even give a thought to how they have been robbed of their birthright.

So it's not a matter of us judging a man by his possessions. It is a matter of a man deciding what his priorities are. If he wants to vote badly enough, then he should get busy on becoming a landowner because it is landowners who pay the most taxes.

[Robin Hood]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

Define "adult."

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?

When America's founding fathers put this law into effect, they were very much aware of the conditions in Europe with her many disenfranchised people. A lifetime of serfdom was the fate of many. In America, almost anyone who had a strong work ethic could buy a piece of land with the added bonus of becoming a voter. An owner of land would obviously be interested in any taxes applied to that land and would jealously guard against government overstepping its bounds through onerous taxation. It is through increasingly higher taxation rates that free citizens are gradually yet surely reduced to slavery. At least, that's where we used to be. Now most people don't even give a thought to how they have been robbed of their birthright.

So it's not a matter of us judging a man by his possessions. It is a matter of a man deciding what his priorities are. If he wants to vote badly enough, then he should get busy on becoming a landowner because it is landowners who pay the most taxes.

I appreciate the explanation, but I cannot agree.

We live in a different world to the one that existed in 1776.
There are now 300 million citizens in the US. Land, in spite of the fact that it was "acquired" from the natives at a knock down price(!), is not now so easy or cheap to obtain. Not only that, but a piece of land in Manhattan, is not the same value as a similar sized piece in Idaho. So, under this proposal perhaps the value of the land should be considered. Why should some hick in Idaho with a 1 acre patch of scrubland worth $500 have the same voting rights as the bloke in New York with a tenth of an acre worth $millions?

And what about those who don't work and earn the money to buy land, but inherit it instead? They get to vote based on who their great-grandfather was.

The original requirement of land ownership was not something the founding fathers thought up themselves, but was in fact the situation in England. Those elected to the English parliament took their seats on the back of votes from land owners only. Rather than being a brave new concept, the founding fathers simply applied existing practice.

I'm sorry, but the rules were changed for a reason. Universal suffrage is a righteous principle and any attempt to restrict people from exercising it is an unrighteous endeavour in my view.

[Silver]

Define "adult."

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?

When America's founding fathers put this law into effect, they were very much aware of the conditions in Europe with her many disenfranchised people. A lifetime of serfdom was the fate of many. In America, almost anyone who had a strong work ethic could buy a piece of land with the added bonus of becoming a voter. An owner of land would obviously be interested in any taxes applied to that land and would jealously guard against government overstepping its bounds through onerous taxation. It is through increasingly higher taxation rates that free citizens are gradually yet surely reduced to slavery. At least, that's where we used to be. Now most people don't even give a thought to how they have been robbed of their birthright.

So it's not a matter of us judging a man by his possessions. It is a matter of a man deciding what his priorities are. If he wants to vote badly enough, then he should get busy on becoming a landowner because it is landowners who pay the most taxes.

I appreciate the explanation, but I cannot agree.

We live in a different world to the one that existed in 1776.
There are now 300 million citizens in the US. Land, in spite of the fact that it was "acquired" from the natives at a knock down price(!), is not now so easy or cheap to obtain. Not only that, but a piece of land in Manhattan, is not the same value as a similar sized piece in Idaho. So, under this proposal perhaps the value of the land should be considered. Why should some hick in Idaho with a 1 acre patch of scrubland worth $500 have the same voting rights as the bloke in New York with a tenth of an acre worth $millions?

And what about those who don't work and earn the money to buy land, but inherit it instead? They get to vote based on who their great-grandfather was.

The original requirement of land ownership was not something the founding fathers thought up themselves, but was in fact the situation in England. Those elected to the English parliament took their seats on the back of votes from land owners only. Rather than being a brave new concept, the founding fathers simply applied existing practice.

I'm sorry, but the rules were changed for a reason. Universal suffrage is a righteous principle and any attempt to restrict people from exercising it is an unrighteous endeavour in my view.

Have you ever read Frederic Bastiat's The Law? My understanding of Bastiat's term of "legal plunder" makes it clear to me that having everyone vote for benefits for themselves is not only a bad idea, it is suicidal. As those least affected by taxes are most likely to vote themselves benefits, it would be better if they just didn't vote.

You raise some great points about the difference between hick (hey, I resemble that remark. my whole family is a bunch of hicks.) and urbanite land ownership. My response would be that in the best of all worlds, politics and taxes need to be 99% local.

As for your "universal" righteous/unrighteous argument, I think there will be just One Person voting on who gets to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

[inho]

Have you ever read Frederic Bastiat's The Law? My understanding of Bastiat's term of "legal plunder" makes it clear to me that having everyone vote for benefits for themselves is not only a bad idea, it is suicidal. As those least affected by taxes are most likely to vote themselves benefits, it would be better if they just didn't vote.

Who should vote then? Don't you think that those most affected by taxes wouldn't vote for their own benefit?

[Silver]

Have you ever read Frederic Bastiat's The Law? My understanding of Bastiat's term of "legal plunder" makes it clear to me that having everyone vote for benefits for themselves is not only a bad idea, it is suicidal. As those least affected by taxes are most likely to vote themselves benefits, it would be better if they just didn't vote.

Who should vote then? Don't you think that those most affected by taxes wouldn't vote for their own benefit?

In our current corrupt society, you're right. That's why Noah had to build a boat. That's why Mormon had to lament from a hilltop, "O ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you!"

Our unavoidable future is one of sackcloth and ashes, but saying that too loudly upsets those with recency bias around here.

[Serragon]

This question is important precisely because we do allow legal plunder. If this were not allowed, or if everyone were assessed equal shares, then it wouldn't really matter as much.

I think limiting voting is simply addressing a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself

[Ezra]

Only law abiding constitutional adults (have to pass a test) who have a job can vote.

No one on government assistance or employed by the government can vote.

That would be my vote.

We want the hard working


And while we are at it. President, cabinet, house and senate have there assets seized if the budge is not balanced to pay for the unbalances.

That would hold them accountable.

[Silver]

Warts and all, the US Constitution has been one of the best documents for limiting the greed and lusts known to exist in mankind throughout the ages. The problem now with the Constitution is not that it's old or old-fashioned. It is that its timeless concepts are ignored or abused.

I know, I know, I always pick on Trump, but liars like him or Obama or Bush (1 & 2) have raised their hands and sworn an oath to defend an inspired set of laws and then set about trying to circumvent it.

The founding fathers certainly looked to England for examples of good governance, as Robin Hood mentioned. However, and I'm pulling the divine approbation card here, the US Constitution beats anything secular that other countries use.

[Rose Garden]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

Define "adult."

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?

No I'm not saying that. I was giving a bit of history and explaining why it might have worked for them. I don't see it working now and honestly I believe it was fairly flawed back then as well. From what I understand, women and minorities couldn't own land.

I've been thinking this over. You need a fairly broad demographic in order to fairly limit voting without restricting it by race or gender, but merely limiting it to "adults" has proven to be problematic. 18 year olds are still quite foolish and it would be difficult to determine what the best age to begin allowing voting should be.

I don't agree with the idea of administering a test because I believe it's fairly difficult to gauge a person's level of responsibility through testing. There are some people, like my brother, who do terribly on tests but are actually quite intelligent. Additionally, book knowledge doesn't translate into practical knowledge (you wouldn't want a surgeon operating on you who had only read about the surgery from a book.)

After considering this, I've come up with an answer that I believe is the best possible solution for this highly difficult situation. I think that parents should be allowed to vote. Place a limitation on voting that only those who have cared for a child full time (which includes providing financial support for someone caring for a child) for at least five years can vote.

My reasoning is that no other demographic will be as motivated to make the best decision for our nation for now and for the future as will parents. No one can be discriminated against based on race, social status, or gender (though men may have a slight disadvantage). By requiring a person to care for a child at least five years, you've reduced the problem of age and a person most meet at least a minimal level of responsibility.

It's not a perfect solution, but I think that it's the best solution possible in this world.

[skmo]

This question is important precisely because we do allow legal plunder. If this were not allowed, or if everyone were assessed equal shares, then it wouldn't really matter as much.

Please clarify and expound here, please.

[Silver]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

Define "adult."

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?

From what I understand, women and minorities couldn't own land.

I have read a few of the wills of my ancestors wherein a father divided up his real estate among his children and some who were named Margaret or Caroline received a portion of that land back in the early 1800's. This was in the South, but I suppose that the practice existed in every State in the union.

[skmo]

No one on government assistance or employed by the government can vote.

That would be my vote.

You want the military to fight and die for a country they can't vote in? You want the CIA to risk their lives for a country who won't listen to their voice?

I'm fine with that for the DEA, BATFE (anyone else think they won't be happy until they have all 26 letters and at least 8 numerals in their acronym?) Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, Much of HHS, most of the IRS, and several other Gov't Letter groups (especially the DHS, which still sounds like it should have been named Der Ministry of der Vaterland) simply because they'd all get pink slips, their buildings would be sold to become Coffee Houses or manufacturing or gambling casinos, whatever.

[skmo]

How about letting every adult citizen (other than those incarcerated) vote?

I'm okay with that, other than convicted felons. I'd open a review board to restore voting rights after a while, but the right to vote for a felon would have to be earned.

However, I'm also okay with the idea that if you're living off of the public treasury, you've lost your right. The same boards that review felons could review these cases because everyone can have problems, but if you're a professional leech (as opposed to those supported for medical or other disability cares, we're a prosperous and generous enough people to care for those honestly disabled) you should not have a vote to say how the gov't should spend my money to provide you with Obamaphones.

[Silver]

Have you ever read Frederic Bastiat's The Law? My understanding of Bastiat's term of "legal plunder" makes it clear to me that having everyone vote for benefits for themselves is not only a bad idea, it is suicidal. As those least affected by taxes are most likely to vote themselves benefits, it would be better if they just didn't vote.

Who should vote then? Don't you think that those most affected by taxes wouldn't vote for their own benefit?

The more I think about your two questions, the more I realized that we often get the premise about taxation wrong. We, as individual citizens, should not have to be thinking about how to vote so that we can benefit the most. That should be a given. That idea should be the bedrock foundation of our laws and society. You worked for your stuff, therefore you should keep it and benefit from it. The government, on the other hand, should have to show in perfect clarity and transparency why they need one extra penny from you. And taking from you for the sole purpose of giving it to someone else is merely plunder. I'm willing to be charitable as I bet you are. If somebody else needs something ask me and I can give willingly, otherwise it is taken from me by force and there are no blessings.

The power to vote is the power to plunder and it is our natural tendency to make plunder legal. To vote in representatives who will pass laws that will allow us to take from others to our own benefit is the current system. That's entirely backwards. We should jealously guard our stuff and our income and demand that the government only perform the functions spelled out in the Constitution and nothing more.

[Rose Garden]

Only law abiding constitutional adults (have to pass a test) who have a job can vote.

No one on government assistance or employed by the government can vote.

That would be my vote.

We want the hard working


And while we are at it. President, cabinet, house and senate have there assets seized if the budge is not balanced to pay for the unbalances.

That would hold them accountable.

I wouldn't go that far. I would just say no more income if the budget isn't balanced. That would be motivation enough. Unfortunately, the guys who decide how much congress is paid are.... congress. Dang. Who let that loophole slide. Oh, right. It was the original congress.....

[Rose Garden]

Define "adult."

Over the age of majority.

On a wider point, why should someone who doesn't own property be disqualified from voting?
The very idea appears utterly ridiculous to me.
In my view it also flies in the face of established gospel principles. Are you honestly saying that a man should be judged by his possessions?

From what I understand, women and minorities couldn't own land.

I have read a few of the wills of my ancestors wherein a father divided up his real estate among his children and some who were named Margaret or Caroline received a portion of that land back in the early 1800's. This was in the South, but I suppose that the practice existed in every State in the union.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll take your ancestors as stronger evidence than urban myth.