Should the poor be allowed to vote?

[awfulthings9]

I meant legal citizens. I thought I clarified that in previous posts.

You did. But you’ve changed your mind on criminals, so now I’m exploring a new area.

Should illegal citizens be able to cast a vote? If not, why not?

By the way, I hope this settles once and for all that I’m just a Devil’s Advocate since I am effectively arguing against my own original post in an attempt to explore an issue to its fullest.

 

[porthos11]

So you haven’t answered the question. How do you know those select few are any more capable of intelligent voting? Everyone has ulterior motives. It’s called being human.

Same answer. I know our sociology.

I know for a fact that the vast majority of my people are incapable of making an intelligent vote based on the big picture. You, as an American, probably will never understand, but we, as an immature democracy, have this problem. Votes are bought and sold here, and all it takes is for the politicos to hand over an envelope or bring in a showbiz personality. Just look through our recent history and see how those “intelligent voters” elected Joseph Estrada into office, and how that turned out. Then see how we very nearly elected Fernando Poe into office, if not for a slim margin of middle-class votes. Those people who voted for those losers are the very same people who do nothing to contribute to the country’s economy.

Oh yes. You be thankful for your political system there and your people’s relative political awareness.

 

[goofyjim]

Same answer. I know our sociology.

I know for a fact that the vast majority of my people are incapable of making an intelligent vote based on the big picture. You, as an American, probably will never understand, but we, as an immature democracy, have this problem. Votes are bought and sold here, and all it takes is for the politicos to hand over an envelope or bring in a showbiz personality. Just look through our recent history and see how those “intelligent voters” elected Joseph Estrada into office, and how that turned out. Then see how we very nearly elected Fernando Poe into office, if not for a slim margin of middle-class votes. Those people who voted for those losers are the very same people who do nothing to contribute to the country’s economy.

Oh yes. You be thankful for your political system there and your people’s relative political awareness.

I’m glad I live in the US where we don’t have to be “contributors” to the economy to vote. Almost like having to buy your vote. America is free. BTW, as I have stated before, the wealthy can vote for losers as well. They are also quite capable of making it a popularity contest. Maybe we should start a thread: Should the rich be allowed to vote?

 

[porthos11]

I’m glad I live in the US where we don’t have to be “contributors” to the economy to vote. Almost like having to buy your vote. America is free. BTW, as I have stated before, the wealthy can vote for losers as well. They are also quite capable of making it a popularity contest. Maybe we should start a thread: Should the rich be allowed to vote?

Hey, don’t get me wrong. I’m griping preceisely the Philippines is exactly like you. Everyone is free to vote here too. All I’m saying is my own personal opinion, and what I think it should be here. Unfortunately, all Filipinos have the right to suffrage, even those outside the country.

 

[goofyjim]

Hey, don’t get me wrong. I’m griping preceisely the Philippines is exactly like you. Everyone is free to vote here too. All I’m saying is my own personal opinion, and what I think it should be here. Unfortunately, all Filipinos have the right to suffrage, even those outside the country.

But the continued gist of this thread is that the poor are uninformed. This is not always true. Through the media they can be as informed as the rich. They may make different decisions on that information but whose right is it to say their decision is wrong. After all, everyone votes their pocketbook, the rich as well as the poor. So maybe noone should be allowed to vote. But then there would be no government. Now if you can prove someone’s ignorance without knowing the “sociology” and actually document it then maybe you have the right to restrict them from voting. But to exclude the poor just on the basis of their being poor, one has to look at how many generations have been poor. Why do they lack a college education? Has it ever been provided? Have they ever had the opportunity to own a home and deliberately turned it down? These are the questions that need to be addressed.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

But the continued gist of this thread is that the poor are uninformed. This is not always true. Through the media they can be as informed as the rich.

It seems that there ought to be a correlation between education and personal income. In fact, statistics will probably bear this out. Now, a person who has obtained higher education is likely to dwarf an uneducated counterpart in terms of being informed about economics and public policy.

For instance, I have taken a look at the general education requirements at different universities and most students are required to take a course on basic economics or something similar. The information that one gains from such courses is far superior than any amount of media saturation.

Thus, while it is certainly not true that every rich person is more educated than every poor person, statistically speaking this is likely. Furthermore, even if a poor person has the time to immerse himself in media (which is doubtful, unless he lives off of welfare), the quality of his information will be much lower than that gained from a college education.

 

[goofyjim]

It seems that there ought to be a correlation between education and personal income. In fact, statistics will probably bear this out. Now, a person who has obtained higher education is likely to dwarf an uneducated counterpart in terms of being informed about economics and public policy.

For instance, I have taken a look at the general education requirements at different universities and most students are required to take a course on basic economics or something similar. The information that one gains from such courses is far superior than any amount of media saturation.

Thus, while it is certainly not true that every rich person is more educated than every poor person, statistically speaking this is likely. Furthermore, even if a poor person has the time to immerse himself in media (which is doubtful, unless he lives off of welfare), the quality of his information will be much lower than that gained from a college education.

Regardless, he should be allowed to vote, and that’s my final answer.

 

[awfulthings9]

It seems that there ought to be a correlation between education and personal income. In fact, statistics will probably bear this out. Now, a person who has obtained higher education is likely to dwarf an uneducated counterpart in terms of being informed about economics and public policy.

For instance, I have taken a look at the general education requirements at different universities and most students are required to take a course on basic economics or something similar. The information that one gains from such courses is far superior than any amount of media saturation.

Thus, while it is certainly not true that every rich person is more educated than every poor person, statistically speaking this is likely. Furthermore, even if a poor person has the time to immerse himself in media (which is doubtful, unless he lives off of welfare), the quality of his information will be much lower than that gained from a college education.

Great answer!

 

[goofyjim]

Great answer!

So was mine. The poor should be allowed to vote.:banghead:

 

[goofyjim]

Who started this thread anyway? Michael Savage? I once heard him make an idiotic statement that those on welfare should not be allowed to vote because they will only vote themselves a pay raise. Well, duh, the politicians do that all the time. That’s when I stopped listening to him.

 

[awfulthings9]

Who started this thread anyway? Michael Savage? I once heard him make an idiotic statement that those on welfare should not be allowed to vote because they will only vote themselves a pay raise. Well, duh, the politicians do that all the time. That’s when I stopped listening to him.

Ouch. Jim, the personal attacks are starting to hurt. My thread is senseless, stupid, and my idea is stupid (according to your posts) and now you are making a mud-slinging reference to a personality for whom you obviously have quite a bit of disdain. From the very beginning there have been a number who have wanted to just have a civil discussion on a thread that has never claimed to be anything more than a thought experiment by someone playing a Devil’s Advocate. Just for the record, I have nothing but Christian love for you, brother. As much as you think the thread is senseless, I’ll point out that as a result of this discussion, two people have had changes of heart on some of their beliefs. One of those people is you, with regards to whether or not prisoners should vote. Is any thread senseless that causes one to examine himself enough more clearly refine his view on things? Can you identify many other threads where two different posters have done so?

But, sigh, I will probably have to brace myself for another personal hit.

 

[cynic]

The suggestion made on that other thread was based on a perception that wealthy, self-employed/successful posters here resented the fact that the poor - low income employees, retired people pulling a pention, and yes welfare recipients - could influence the political system and vote in a ‘socialist’ government that would take away their money etc. The implication was this was wrong, and shouldn’t be possible - hence no vote for anyone that has something to gain from wealth-redistribution policies.

Actually I read an article in National Review a few years ago that suggested voting be restricted to self-employed males over 40 (apparently women were only interested in local body politics).

 

[goofyjim]

The suggestion made on that other thread was based on a perception that wealthy, self-employed/successful posters here resented the fact that the poor - low income employees, retired people pulling a pention, and yes welfare recipients - could influence the political system and vote in a ‘socialist’ government that would take away their money etc. The implication was this was wrong, and shouldn’t be possible - hence no vote for anyone that has something to gain from wealth-redistribution policies.

Actually I read an article in National Review a few years ago that suggested voting be restricted to self-employed males over 40 (apparently women were only interested in local body politics).

Well that would exclude me. Sorry but I will only let it happen over my dead body. I will fight for my vote. If there are enough poor to offset the vote of the rich then there is a fundamental problem that must be addressed. Not just limit the vote to the haves and take it away from the havenots.

 

[awfulthings9]

The suggestion made on that other thread was based on a perception that wealthy, self-employed/successful posters here resented the fact that the poor - low income employees, retired people pulling a pention, and yes welfare recipients - could influence the political system and vote in a ‘socialist’ government that would take away their money etc. The implication was this was wrong, and shouldn’t be possible - hence no vote for anyone that has something to gain from wealth-redistribution policies.

Actually I read an article in National Review a few years ago that suggested voting be restricted to self-employed males over 40 (apparently women were only interested in local body politics).

Hey, that would exclude me, too … and I think it is a GREAT idea! I’m not sold on males only, but the over 40 and self-employed (I am neither) aspect sounds fascinating. I need to see if this article is online.

 

[drafdog]

Again with the question from the wrong direction. The poor should be allowed to vote. It is one of the few ways of excercising power over the conditions in which they live. The question should be “Should the rich be allowed to vote?” The rich have enough power in society without giving them a vote.

Matthew

 

[awfulthings9]

Again with the question from the wrong direction. The poor should be allowed to vote.

The title for this thread might have been poorly chosen, but it was catchy and drew plenty of controversy. However, as the posts have made pretty clear, the aim isn’t to discriminate based on economic level, but to try to find some indicator of a group of people who generally make bad decisions … admitting that there are exceptions to every room and that anyone can find an anecdotal example to contradict a general theory.

It is one of the few ways of excercising power over the conditions in which they live.

So, given my explanation that our attempt is to identify a group of people (not necessarily the poor, but certainly those whose decisions might have lead to poverty) who generally make bad decisions, would it be a wise decision to have that group excercising power over those conditions?

The question should be "Should the rich be allowed to vote? The rich have enough power in society without giving them a vote.

Define “enough” power.

And, considering the point that many class warfare types have put forth that the very wealthy amount to such a small portion of society, does their vote really amount to “power”?

And, supposing we were able to theoretically identify a group of people who have had a history of wise choices (whether or not they personally benefited from them) and a group of people with a history of habitually poor choices, would you advocate assigning a vote to one or the other? If so, which group? And do you see any general indicators of this in society?

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Perhaps we should all read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rynd. It might change your perspective a little.

 

[Maxply]

Read the Declaration of Independence. You get a vote simply on the basis of your existence as an adult human being.

Once you go down the slippery slope of whatever feel-good qualifications you want to add (e.g., age, income, race, gender, religion), it gets real scary real fast.

Hard to believe there are jamokes out there willing to buy the “only let the rich” and “only let the intelligent” vote shtick.

(GoofyJim: disagree vehemently with you re: the homosexuals, but here I got yer back.

 

[awfulthings9]

Read the Declaration of Independence. You get a vote simply on the basis of your existence as an adult human being.

Great! Where is that passage, exactly? I’ll read it right away. I’ve scanned for the part about being guaranteed a vote based on existence but haven’t found it yet.

Once you go down the slippery slope of whatever feel-good qualifications you want to add (e.g., age, income, race, gender, religion), it gets real scary real fast.

Define “feel-good qualification”

Hard to believe there are jamokes out there willing to buy the “only let the rich” and “only let the intelligent” vote shtick.

Again with the name calling. Hard to believe there are individuals out there who still discuss things that way.

 

[drafdog]

Re. post 175 above: How do you define a bad decision and how do you measure a propensity to make such decisions?

Matthew