Should the poor be allowed to vote?

[porthos11]

You’ve got to be kidding on this whole thing. Voting based on whether or not one is financially secure? The only restriction I would even remotely consider is criminal record. Otherwise EVERYONE has the right to vote.

I come from the Philippines, and I’m sorely against universal suffrage, especially for President. We almost voted a college dropout movie star into office.

Oh wait, we did that already.

As far as I’m concerned, in order to be able to vote, one must possess a college degree and be a regular tax payer. Poverty should not be a factor, but then if you’re poor and don’t pay taxes, well tough. But if you’re poor but still pay your income taxes, then you’ve earned the right to vote.

Criminal record is hardly anything I’d worry about as far as elections are concerned.

 

[awfulthings9]

I think you’ve overplayed your hand. Using “ad hominem” in a post where you profess utter ignorance about recent US history and fiscal policy would seem to be something of a ‘tell’.

Nice.

You could have pointed out my utter ignorance (I only claimed ignorance about *implications of *the two specific growth incentives - not safety nets - that you mentioned, which were rural electrification and land grants). You could have clarified the quote in question. You could have answered my objections. You could have pointed out where my analysis of recent US history or fiscal policy was “utter ignorance”.

But this is your response?

 

[goofyjim]

I come from the Philippines, and I’m sorely against universal suffrage, especially for President. We almost voted a college dropout movie star into office.

Oh wait, we did that already.

As far as I’m concerned, in order to be able to vote, one must possess a college degree and be a regular tax payer. Poverty should not be a factor, but then if you’re poor and don’t pay taxes, well tough. But if you’re poor but still pay your income taxes, then you’ve earned the right to vote.

Criminal record is hardly anything I’d worry about as far as elections are concerned.

I’m relieved I am not there. So you are saying the rich should then decide everything for the poor? And what is to prevent the rich from keeping the poor that way and never allowing them to vote. Strange logic to exclude someone from voting based on poverty.

 

[porthos11]

I’m relieved I am not there. So you are saying the rich should then decide everything for the poor?

Not necessarily rich, but the educated, and the taxpayers.

And what is to prevent the rich from keeping the poor that way and never allowing them to vote. Strange logic to exclude someone from voting based on poverty.

Not exactly what I said. Unfortunately, universal suffrage does exist here, and it’s a right protected by our Constitution, not a privilege.

I just believe that the privilege (not right) to vote should be extended to those who contribute to the country’s growth. There are many poor here who still pay their taxes. In my flawed logic, they too should be entitled to vote.

It’s a sad fact, but the poor here are also ignorant and politically immature. They find their relief in show business, and popularity is what makes one win elections here, not the issues. That’s how Estrada was elected, and how Poe almost won, if not for 1 million smarter people (the number of which, coincitentally, matches the Cebu votes).

Yes, we owe it to the poor to better their lot. They should be enabled to feed and clothe themselves. But letting them vote their favorite movie-star dropouts into office is not a way of doing that. IF they have their way, they would most likely remain that way.

 

[DL82]

The question should be turned on its’ head, should a democracy allow its’ citizens (who are the ‘masters’ of their government) to be poor and ignorant? What are we doing as a majority, as an electorate and as a government, to make sure that everybody is aware of political issues, engaged in the running of government, and has the opportunity to make a difference through direct action, lobbying and gainful employment, and not just once every 4 years.

 

[porthos11]

The question should be turned on its’ head, should a democracy allow its’ citizens (who are the ‘masters’ of their government) to be poor and ignorant? What are we doing as a majority, as an electorate and as a government, to make sure that everybody is aware of political issues, engaged in the running of government, and has the opportunity to make a difference through direct action, lobbying and gainful employment, and not just once every 4 years.

Right.

Sorry for sounding so pessimistic, but democracy is not the silver bullet for all nations. Countries like the Philippines are not ready for democracy (heck, I even think it’s not ready for independence!). What ought to work for us is a benevolent dictatorship. Of course, that’s a high ideal (since we’re a corrupt nation), but who knows? A benevolent dictator can do what’s best for the poor and ignorant without the troublemakers in Congress interfering at every step.

 

[goofyjim]

Right.

Sorry for sounding so pessimistic, but democracy is not the silver bullet for all nations. Countries like the Philippines are not ready for democracy (heck, I even think it’s not ready for independence!). What ought to work for us is a benevolent dictatorship. Of course, that’s a high ideal (since we’re a corrupt nation), but who knows? A benevolent dictator can do what’s best for the poor and ignorant without the troublemakers in Congress interfering at every step.

That might work for you but I don’t want no dictator either from the left wing or the right wing in the US.

 

[porthos11]

That might work for you but I don’t want no dictator either from the left wing or the right wing in the US.

You are in the United States, which has a more mature electorate, having been in the business for 200+ years. Your form of government is right for you. A dictator would be a mistake in your case.

It’s not the right form for us. We, on the other hand, are an immature people, plagued with corruption and the showbiz mentality, where the so-called “masa” (masses) are a large sector with absolutely no sense of the political issues. Bread and circuses is what they want, but unfortunately, they can’t draw the line between the circuses and the government.

No, we need a good leader who can discipline those under him, impose proper economic policy, and ensure economic growth, while ensuring proper treatment of human rights and justice.

Barring that, a federal/parliamentary form of government would be the next best thing. But US-style democracy? No way, not for us.

 

[awfulthings9]

That might work for you but I don’t want no dictator either from the left wing or the right wing in the US.

Me either! That would be almost as bad as living in a democracy.

Thankfully, our representative republic has served us pretty well.

 

[Holly3278]

Wow. This is ridiculous. Why on earth should one keep the poor from voting? The poor have just as much right to vote as the rich do!

 

[awfulthings9]

Wow. This is ridiculous. Why on earth should one keep the poor from voting? The poor have just as much right to vote as the rich do!

You are correct, the poor have just as much right to vote as the rich do, which is none. We are not guaranteed any right to vote in a presidential election, for instance (or any federal level election, for that matter). Some states may have given the “right” within their state, but not on a national level.

Have you read the thread? We’ve really covered all of this.

Let me ask for your perspective here. Let’s concede that voting should not be a matter of money. I think that case has been made. Do the ignorant have as much of a right to vote as the informed? If so, why? If not, how would you propose they are identified?

 

[goofyjim]

You are correct, the poor have just as much right to vote as the rich do, which is none. We are not guaranteed any right to vote in a presidential election, for instance (or any federal level election, for that matter). Some states may have given the “right” within their state, but not on a national level.

Have you read the thread? We’ve really covered all of this.

Let me ask for your perspective here. Let’s concede that voting should not be a matter of money. I think that case has been made. Do the ignorant have as much of a right to vote as the informed? If so, why? If not, how would you propose they are identified?

And how are we to define ignorance? We have tv that everyone watches. Whether they get their info from the leftist media or the conservative media they are still informed so they make their decision and vote. It’s immoral to keep labelling people as ignorant and then say they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

 

[porthos11]

And how are we to define ignorance? We have tv that everyone watches. Whether they get their info from the leftist media or the conservative media they are still informed so they make their decision and vote.

Yes. In the U.S. Here, we have singing and dancing politicians who are scared of debates because of THEIR own ignorance. We do not have an informed electorate. Count your blessings as an American, but do not impose on other nations for whom democracy is a sham.

It’s immoral to keep labelling people as ignorant and then say they shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

No, it’s simply pointing out the truth. It’s truly frightening to give such power to those who do not even know the issues facing the nation, and simply vote for them because of their movie appearances.

 

[goofyjim]

Yes. In the U.S. Here, we have singing and dancing politicians who are scared of debates because of THEIR own ignorance. We do not have an informed electorate. Count your blessings as an American, but do not impose on other nations for whom democracy is a sham.

No, it’s simply pointing out the truth. It’s truly frightening to give such power to those who do not even know the issues facing the nation, and simply vote for them because of their movie appearances.

But how do you know the reasons for their voting? How can you presume to read someone else’s motives? Therefore isn’t it just as frightening to put the power only in the hands of a select few? I hope that never happens here in the states. I’ll die to keep my vote.

 

[DL82]

You are correct, the poor have just as much right to vote as the rich do, which is none. We are not guaranteed any right to vote in a presidential election, for instance (or any federal level election, for that matter). Some states may have given the “right” within their state, but not on a national level.

Huh? Are there any states that don’t give their residents the right to vote in US presidential elections? Were there ever any? Would any state ever be able to take that right away without being kicked out of the Union?

If not, then it’s a de-facto right whether it’s written down anywhere or not.

 

[awfulthings9]

Huh? Are there any states that don’t give their residents the right to vote in US presidential elections? Were there ever any? Would any state ever be able to take that right away without being kicked out of the Union?

If not, then it’s a de-facto right whether it’s written down anywhere or not.

Yes, there are. In fact, in my own state there is something of a controversy over whether one can vote without a picture ID. Some suggest that this is a means to discriminate against the poor. The legislation passed and, last time I checked, we weren’t kicked out of the Union.

Other reasons one can be denied in various states - one speaks a language other than that in which the ballots are printed; one is a felon.

So … the de facto argument falls flat.

In addition, if we are to assume that something is a right because no state has actively denied that “right” opens up for a lot of de facto “rights” you might not agree with.

After all, have any states denied the “right” to an abortion lately? Perhaps once upon a time, but the same could be said for voting.

 

[porthos11]

But how do you know the reasons for their voting? How can you presume to read someone else’s motives? Therefore isn’t it just as frightening to put the power only in the hands of a select few? I hope that never happens here in the states. I’ll die to keep my vote.

Because I have an awareness of our own sociology and political science.

For as long as that select few can make an intelligent voting decision, yes, I’m all for it.

 

[Maxply]

GoofyJim, I’m on your side in this one, buddy.

Read the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal.

This should settle it; one man, one vote’s the way democracies work. It’s unfortunate that the poor have never voted commensurate to their political power.

 

[mary_bobo]

The question should be turned on its’ head, should a democracy allow its’ citizens (who are the ‘masters’ of their government) to be poor and ignorant? What are we doing as a majority, as an electorate and as a government, to make sure that everybody is aware of political issues, engaged in the running of government, and has the opportunity to make a difference through direct action, lobbying and gainful employment, and not just once every 4 years.

How do you think this can be accomplished? Ignorance (of the issues) is a factor of lack of interest. You cannot legislate that a person be interested in government or that they participate. And it is not necessarily the poor who are not aware of what is going on. With primaries coming up in my state in the near future, our son-in-law asked my DH about the election and said that he had no idea who was for what or how to vote. And this is an intelligent, successful person. There are far too many people around these days who fit this same picture. They wait until time for the election and then they decide based on who looks and sounds good on TV with no idea whatsoever of that persons positions on the issues. Heck, they often do not know what the issues are.

 

[awfulthings9]

GoofyJim, I’m on your side in this one, buddy.

Read the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal.

This should settle it; one man, one vote’s the way democracies work. It’s unfortunate that the poor have never voted commensurate to their political power.

First off, we aren’t a democracy. Just to clarify. We are a representative republic.

Secondly, of course all men are created equal. The question is whether or not some of our actions have consequences that remove “rights” from us (you’ll notice that my original post was not really based on poverty, per se, but choices and consequences - perhaps wrongly chosen, but all the same). The answer is yes.

If a man molests his daughter he loses the “right” to have children in his home.

If a woman declares bankruptcy, she loses the “right” to get a reasonable home loan.

The question is whether there are things one can do which demonstrate that he has done enough harm on an individual level that he should be restricted from spreading that damage to others through, say, a federal election.

You may answer no, as some have done, but I’m afraid that falling back on the “all men are created equal” line doesn’t settle it once and for all.