say what? thats against community rules, but I'm not going to bother with it now. its already got over a hundred comments. I wish I had noticed earlier.
I'm sympathetic to a view that voting should require some minimal financial stake. After all, voting can be used to redistribute wealth into the hands of (some of) the voters. And currently we have roughly half a nation that works for a living, set against another half that votes for a living (at the first half's expense, naturally). That just seems utterly wrong. If you have nothing, I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be able to vote yourself someone else's money just because you can get 50% plus one vote.
I'd like that... If an individual receieves any public money, they're inelligible to vote. I'd even be open to excluding local, state and federal gov't employees.
I dont think that's right, especially not in high periods of unemployment. People drawing unemployment checks are drawing primarily on money that was paid into the system on their behalf anyway. That would also cover students who received federally subsidized student loans. and old people drawing the social security and medicare benefits they paid into all of their working lives. you'd have to get more specific. I'd be all for say banning people who receive welfare and/or live in housing projects, or anyone who hasnt completed a high school level education. And of course there should be an exception across the board for veterans. I'm with robert heinlen in the belief that military service should automatically guarantee one all the rights a citizen can have
( ... )
Comments 21
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
=]
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment