Only Rich Can Vote

The proposal is good but doesn't go far enough. Let's eliminate all voters, who might be uneducated, misinformed, or even worse, poor, and just let the corporations select all political leaders.
 
I agree that the uninformed should not vote. I usually dont vote in every election on the ballot because I realize that I am uninformed sometimes.

However, if you read the "rise of stupid" thread, you understand that stupid/uninformed people often to not realize that they are stupid/uninformed. They usually vote a straight ticket and are convinced that their team is 100% right on every issue and anybody in disagreement is a socialist hippie/redneck gun nut. Good luck convincing those people not to vote.
 
The platform of the Republican party, all of their policies, all of their intentions...summed up in those prescient four words...Only Rich Can Vote.
 
We already have one. It was just massively expanded and currently targets US citizens that do not agree with the president.
 
I know this is a mistake, but please humor me. What in either of those two posts was inaccurate or troublesome to the master liberal?
 
So by saying a voter is uninformed do you mean he just doesn't believe the lies your party is telling? or he isn't watching the right news programs or maybe he just has a different views altogether. Where do you draw a line to label someone uninformed when both parties lie about every issue. You can't rely on the news for the truth, you can't rely on the Repubs or Dems. In my opinion someone who yells the loudest about their party is the least informed, narrow minded voter there is.
 
To me, the uninformed voter cannot tell you why they are voting for someone other than "I like him/her." When asked about specifics, they cannot tell you regardless of their political affiliation.
 
I don't think that is a good explanation, to many voters it is about trusting the person you are voting for and their vote carries the same weight as a voter who knows U.S. laws inside and out. There are and should be voters at all levels of knowledge. Being elected to an office is a job, instead of the voters having to posses a certain level of knowledge we should forcing those that run for office to pass a test of knowledge before they can run for office.
 
Thanks for summing up why our country is $17 trillion in debt and keeps on borrowing more money to hand out goodies, start expensive wars and generally waste money on pet projects.
 
Figuring out how many votes each person gets will put us another 17 trillion in debt. One person one vote works for me. Work harder to convince people your ideas are right instead of trying to rig the system to where people that are more likely to think like you have more influece. Since this is mostly conservatives touting the idea, Ill use Texas as an example. Plenty of poor people here but we have a very conservative group of elected officials. Somewhere along the line conservatives in Texas did a good job of convincing people that their ideas work and they didnt need oil guys voting 1,000 times to do it.
 
Texas has been growing for a long time and has been able to maintain its conservatism over the years. I would imagine that the people that choose to move here are less liberal that you would suspect. From 2000 to 2012 Texas gained 6 million people. Poor or uninformed voters are most likely to vote in presidential elections. The republican got:
2000 59%
2004 61%
2008 55%
2012 57%

Seems pretty stable to me especially considering the growth. We grew by 30% and not much changed. If the next 30% change things I'm more inclined to believe that the voters became disillusioned with the Republican Party for whatever reason.
 
Larry, overall I agree with your point. As critical as I am of the Texas GOP, it has done a better job than most at not alienating people, particularly during the Bush years (as governor). One of the reasons Obama can't carry Texas is that Hispanics and women aren't hostile to the GOP in Texas as they are elsewhere.

However, there are two key things to remember. First, people who move out of state for jobs are probably upwardly mobile and are going to be disproportionately Republican. (That's one of the reasons California is now solid Democratic. Many people moved out in the '80s and early '90s whose jobs had been based on the defense industry. They went to places like Arizona and Texas, which switched from swing states to Republican states.)

Second, a large part of Texas' population growth has been due to immigration. They mostly don't vote either because ineligibility (illegal aliens) or lack of interest.
 
You know what Larry...you have a point. The conservatives in Texas, dominated by Bush and Perry camps, at least from a social perspective have a softer edge than other conservatives in the Deep South. Even Perry, to his credit, defended in a national debate the position that we have to pay for/subsidize the education of children of illegal immigrants...which I support myself. I think the GOP in the Gulf Coast states, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, more historically culturally diverse states in the South, have bettered adapted. So, good point there.

But the major point of my post as it relates to the OP is the dilution of a voter bloc by granting illegal immigrants citizenship. Forget the Super Bowl Coke commercials, we are a nation of laws. What would be so unjust to grant legal status to illegal immigrants, people who broke the law? The answer is nothing. But if you're a democrat, simple legal status wouldn't dilute conservative voters...so they're going for the jugular. I don't care if George P. Bush himself campaigns 24/7 in Spanish, he probably wouldn't win a statewide election much less any non-hispanic Republican.
 
OK, back to the original post... a senior citizen who receives social security (and maybe some limited other income) can't vote because the tax laws allow him to pay no income tax? A ridiculous post.
 
Why is it the right wing thinks it is OK to destroy the Constitution on this issue, while insisting on a strict reading of the document on many other issues, i.e. second amendment? Seems a bit inconsistent to me.
Of course, it does make sense when realizing the only way to ensure election of their candidates is to severely restrict voting by those opposed to their policies, and to gerrymander their districts where the opponents' votes don't count anyway, should they actually find a way to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top