What do you think of allowing only property owners to vote?

Then again, the property owners back then made much of the wealth of the country. Things have changed a lot and a lot of people who rent do so by choice. I think you are right about the mind set back then. Most of the people I discuss this subject with in "real" life are more concerned about voters enacting more and more entitlement programs than restricting the vote. I think there's a better way to restrict entitlement programs than taking away someone's vote! Thanks for adding to the discussion by bringing up the traditions and attitudes of the founders. That will explain why the provision was there in the first place.

You forgot to type some of the words in the sentence: Then again, the property owners back then enslaved the people who made much of the wealth of the country Fixed that for you.

If I own a house in a different community than I live in and pay taxes on that property should I be able to vote in the community elections (only those government bodies who can tax that property)? If I don't get to vote then the local people could raise my taxes to reduce theirs. In one community near me the City Council voted to repave a street and put in curb and gutter with a sidewalk. The sidewalk was placed on the side of the street where most of the houses are owned by people who do not live in the community (these are vacation homes on a lake within the city). There is no sidewalk on the other side where the local people live. Is that fair to tax the people who live out of the area paying for a sidewalk for people who live in the community and use the sidewalks on a daily basis. In the winter the people who did not live in the houses year round had to pay a local person to clear their sidewalk or be fined by the city. Now move this to the national level and people who pay no federal tax getting a say in who and how much people pay in taxes and how the tax money is used.

It's not what I think that I was speaking of. Most of the people that have brought this subject up in conversation have become disillusioned with all the entitlement programs like public assistance. They say that people on public assistance tend to vote for whoever or whatever will give them more. I've known people on public assistance and I don't think that's the case with the majority. Most want to get off it as soon as they can! There is a small core of moochers, though, who don't want to. I don't think that that segment of our population cares much to vote, to tell you the truth. Gerty brought up a good point--education. I think we should bring back civics classes so that our up and coming voters will know better than to take a politician's smooth talk at face value. I think that would solve the problem of gullible voters much better than choosing who can vote and who can't!

My you was NOT directed at "YOU". It was directed at whoever put those thoughts in your head!!! You just happened to be the one asking the question. I AVOID the subject of politics as much as possible. If anybody's rights should be taken away...it should be the politicians!!!! They say that people on public assistance tend to vote for whoever or whatever will give them more. Please tell me how this differs from those against public assistance??? Our society has become a GREEDY society. Everybody seems to be out for themselves!!! NOT everybody on public assistance is there because they are lazy. NOT everybody on public assistance deserve to be there either. I feel the screening process is what is lacking!!! I help take care of disabled young ladies when necessary. One in particular tried extremely hard to NOT go on public assistance. She could walk & she appeared to talk intelligently. The only catch was that her thought process was severely damaged by her disability. You had to be around her for a while before you could even see it. Nobody could see the pain she was in from trying to walk through a day's worth of work. Nobody saw when her thought process when haywire. Anybody looking from the outside would say she didn't deserve disability because she was just lazy. They couldn't see with their own 2 eyes what that child was going through. Most who say that would NOT suffer what she did in order to try & keep a job!!! Because her brain didn't work as well as others, she was discriminated against by her coworkers. Because of her disability she was discriminated against by the public in general. It took 18 years to get her on disability because some azzhole said if she could walk, she could work. She was too disabled for a decent paying job & not disabled enough for a minimum wage job. She was in that Catch 22 area. Yet I had a neighbor who received disability because she "thought" her husband was running around on her & couldn't keep a job because she kept taking off work to follow him around so she could catch him cheating. She was a FULLY able body person who had what I perceived as a quirk. One girl I worked with went on disability because she said she had to pee too often. Hell, if that's a reason not to work, I'd gone out 40 years ago!!! I love Ms Gerty's idea. I have learned in my lifetime that if a politician's mouth opens, you can be sure a lie will fall out!!! I've often said, if they want to run, they should be disqualified!!! They give themselves pay raises yearly & hide it so the public won't be outraged. They ALWAYS know a better way to do it...that is...until they get in office. Being a politician is their JOB. Of course they are going to tell us what they think we want to hear!!! Once in, they are NOT held accountable for their actions. I've had a friend who raises hell every year about one particular politician...yet he votes FOR him every time the election comes up. How are we going to get change IF we vote the basttards back in??? I think we should be able to vote every 3 months & vote them OUT of office if they don't do what they say they are going to do. OR let them have ONLY 1 year terms. I also like the idea of term limits. Give them 2 terms to implement their ideas & then kick them out & bring in new blood!!!

I'm serious because I want to know what people think. I've already learned something because you replied--I did not think of the issues you've brought up and those are good points against limiting voting. I've heard this argument more and more lately and was wondering what everyone else thought. I have not heard your arguments brought up, though, which is surprising. I voted when I was not a property owner and I think I did so responsibly.

Aussies, do you really believe that in most cases only the husband owns the property the couple lives in and that the wife's name is not also on the deed or were you just being facetious?

It would be in the husband name if he was the only bread winner, because he would be the only one being able to apply for the loan. But I agree that times have changed, and it is almost impossible for an ordinary family to buy a home on one salary. So most couples today have both their names on a house, since they both work and share everything 50/50. But I still think it would be totally ridiculous to limit voting to property owners. Here we have a world trying to introduce equality at all levels, and you suddenly want to create a divide between those who can afford a house and those who can't. What a total lot of nonsense.

Actually, renters pay a lot of property tax. The landlord's obligation in insurance and taxes definitely figures into how much he is charging for rent. If property taxes go up, rents will too - simply because that is what the owner must do to continue to pay his overhead and make a profit. This is why renters should not be excluded. They pay property taxes indirectly. When it comes to people renting in subsidized housing or whose rent is paid all or in part with public funds, that may be a different situation.

That would make sense. As I told another poster, when I was young I thought property owners were rich and I voted to raise property taxes every chance I could! Now I'm wiser and more practical!

Like you, I can see the pros and cons, but I doubt that our present system of 1 vote for each qualifying citizen will change or will ever be challenged. I suspect that we property owners are out numbered by non-property owners.

I don't think the people I was discussing this with were thinking that wealth equaled intelligence, although it may have been the attitude back in the 1700's. The concern I heard voiced was all the people on public assistance or getting some benefit from government entitlement programs such as food stamps, etc., would vote for anyone who promised them more free stuff. I don't know that I agree with that but I do know that people tend to believe anything a slick politician says. They are lazy and don't investigate on their own, watch only one news channel, listen to only one radio station, etc., and let themselves by brainwashed by the bias of whatever media they prefer. And our media IS biased to the right or left, depending on what one prefers. To tell the truth, I think renting is a better option right now. The economy won't get better anytime soon. Thank you both for contributing!

Dragon - unfortunatly that was the general sentiment back then, wether or not they actually came out and said it, we all know that was the main reason. They were afraid that people of lesser intelligence (which to them meant women, blacks and the poor) would ruin the idealistic government structure that they had set up. The idea that people who are not incredibly intelligent shouldn't get a say in their own government is to me quite UNdemocratic, honestly. If we allow only the wealthy to have power, we set the poor up for massive discrimination. Who knows, the poor might be taxed 50% on their income while the rich get all the tax breaks!

I haven't seen that most folks are advocating renting in the economy. Most folks I've seen say now is the time to buy buy buy and talk about using that rent money as payments on your own home, where you are building equity and not essentially tossing money away. I do agree though that "the idea that only people of wealth are competent enough to have voice in choosing their government officials was just as absurd back then as it is today" is very true :).

That's another good argument against my friends' arguments! I know that when I was your age I moved around a lot, too. Even now, if I'd known 3 years ago what I do today I would not have "bought" a house but rented somewhere. I love my little house, it's perfect for me and my dogs, but it's 1800 miles away from my adult sons and I miss them like crazy. Welcome to myLot! You must have a very interesting life as the wife of a pastor. Challenging, to say the least. I hope you enjoy it here and make lots of friends! I also hope you'll start some discussions in which you share with us what it's like having so much responsibility. I guess you've read the rules--just don't post referral links!

Yes, but if not for our uglier natures we would have no challenges and thus not deserve the grace that the Lord grants us. He would have sheep instead of children, and that would not be very gratifying or set good examples of what faith can do!

Thanks for the welcome! It's definitely been a challenge, but I am luckier than some- I knew marrying him what he was going to be doing for a living. It still doesn't prepare you for seeing the uglier side of human nature (sometimes) though!

I like 2, 4 and 5 especially! #4 would insure that we wouldn't get a lot of voting for entitlement programs--the exception should be made for retirees because some of them don't have much more than Social Security. Thank you for such a thoughtful response!

The power plant provided electrical power to a major urban area and not the community were they were located.

That's a very good idea, redo the tax code. I'm in favor of a flat tax, a percentage of your income over a certain poverty level. Your example of the school stadium is one reason that people will bring up this subject of voting--if someone else is paying for it, why not? That's all too common nowadays but they don't realize that we ALL pay for it. The company that pays 80% of the taxes? They have to raise their prices to make up for that, pay their employees less or compromise on materials. We all pay, one way or another. Be sure to vote in November, please. The politicians know the voters are angry and if we follow through, they'll begin to change things to be fair to the people instead of the lobbyists that line politicians' pockets.

That is a good suggestion. I do think that if people on reading the subject think with their heads rather then thinking with their emotions, it would be better. I do think that renters and those who are on welfare have to realize that if they want money, they also have to pay for it as well as the property owners. It is known as adulthood. Some taxes are only put on those over a certain income but usually what happens is that first everyone pays them including the poor and the poor get a deduction at tax time. It is sort of like when I was young and wanted something stupid from my parents, I did not realize until later that that stupid thing might make the difference between us having a nice Sunday supper or just having to eat leftovers. Sort of a weird way of explaining it, but that is all I can think of at the moment.

"like those nowadays who think the world owes them a living or they are owed entitlements" I think those types of people are what concerned the person who first brought the subject up to me. Jefferson (one of our founders) is the one I think said that once people find out they can vote to make other people give their money to benefit the poor or lazy, it's all over and the republic will be destroyed. We are there now. But I like Gerty's suggestion better than restricting the vote--educate children, our future voters, with civics classes so they understand that when they vote for a tax or an entitlement it is coming out of their own pockets.

Well the schools are not a very good place for our young people to learn about voting. Schools are teaching children to be good little socialists. They are teaching them to hate capitalism and everything it stands for. They sing songs praising Obama and the various leaders of today. It is scary. They teach nothing about our forefathers unless it relates to how terrible they were for having slaves. They do not even teach much about Lincoln. The History books denigrate America now and praise other countries. It is very sad....

I am not for denying anyone (except felons, that's the law) the right to vote. But the subject has come up several times in the past year among my neighbors and friends. It was bizarre the first time I heard it! It's still a strange thing to be discussing and it reminds me of the gradual creep of dictatorship. I think peoples' concerns, as you just said, would be somewhat alleviated with more educated voters. Many are learning fast the consequences of their local, state and national votes. We need to educate our young voters before they are eligible to vote, about the consequences of their votes and how slimy politicians can be.

It is kind of hard to imagine in a country the size of this one that one's vote would matter but if tens of thousands felt that way and did or didn't vote based on those feelings, the outcome of many elections certainly would be different. I vote for the same reasons you so...others fought hard to give me this right and I take it seriously. I also agree with you about uninformed voters. It takes time to learn about a candidate and too many folks are too lazy to invest the time. Some key phrase or promise will stick and that's all they need to hear.

Wouldn't it be nice if candidates were not able to show their faces until they were elected? We'd get a lot better elected officials! Unfortunately, intelligence and knowledge are sadly lacking in the voting booth. How many people do you think actually read those pamphlets that outline the propositions and issues? I know I do but many people either don't want to or don't think they have the time. Maybe we should have a quiz before one can enter the voting booth. Basic questions like what the issues are, multiple choice graded right there by computers that then present the voter with a ballot when they have a certain percentage of correct answers!

yes, we could have them labeled as candidate A and B, etc. and hear their debates either on the radio or tv without their faces, etc. i really think this would be a better way to go for the USA since the 60's we are to focused on looks, charisma, and personality. not their intellect and ability to help our country.

That's a great idea, Precious! We have so many uninformed voters--worse yet, lots of them support one party over another no matter where the candidates stand on the issues. I really don't see why we have to have parties at all. I'm a registered Republican but I've voted for plenty of Democrats whose ideas synced more with mine. I don't care which party they are, what they look like or how slick they talk--too bad I'm the exception rather than the rule. But I think we're changing that! I'd like to take it further and prohibit candidates from using television for campaigning. More people would read literature then, or listen to the radio and kick start their atrophied imaginations! For sure, better decisions would be made.

You're right. If the candidates weren't allowed to be seen on television or heard on radio, they couldn't use their twinkling eyes, engaging smiles, the color of their skin, or clever manipulation of words and phrases to lure anyone into their camp. A voter's decision would have to be on the issues alone. I also wish they'd not be allowed to say anything negative about the other candidates. All I'm interested in as a voter is what is the candidates platform and principles. I'm not interested in what the other candidate will do or has done wrong. I want to know what you, as a potential Senator, Representative, Governor or President will do right and why it's the right thing to do.

I would tend to agree but the person who first introduced me to this concept cited all the voters on public assistance that keep voting for entitlement programs because they pay no taxes other than sales tax. He was very adamant that they not be allowed to vote. However, there are many responsible people who happen to need public assistance but get off it as soon as they can--look at all the former homeowners now on some sort of public assistance! There are arguments for and against. I would not like to have my vote taken away if I lost my house and decided to rent. But I also want entitlement programs to be sharply curtailed among the able bodied once we are past this financial disaster--if we ever are.

Someone else made that same point! This discussion has been very educational for me and now I have some counterpoints the next time a friend brings the subject up. Thanks!

We need more voters like you and then this subject would not even come up. What has happened to our country's pride in being self sufficient? We need to get that back and then things would take care of themselves!

I certainly agree with you, Maggie. I'm sorry for your sister but we all make choices. The problem is that we have become a country of people that refuse to take responsibility for our actions. That includes our actions in the voting booth!

I've discovered a lot of new ways of thinking about this by posting this discussion. I think education is preferable to limiting voting rights. I'm convinced that we need to educate voters and demand more thought in voting, not restrict it to certain people.

Yes, I shudder the think of the revolts. Worse still, what if there were none? Say the government offered incentives to non-property owners not to vote and it was enough to keep them quiet? That's horrifying but I suspect it could possibly come to be true. On the other hand, I think there might be enough non-property owners who truly care about the country and vote responsibly to make a stink about something like that. And there are a lot of property owners who don't vote at all. If people would vote responsibly instead of for the person who looked the best or talked the slickest, this question would not even be voiced.