Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Who Should Vote?

I've read that in some of the original colonies (and maybe states, later) voting was limited to property owners, since other folks were considered to have "no skin in the game", as we now say. If so, I think it should have been left that way, since the poor invariably try to vote themselves the property of the better off, leaving them (the poor) with no incentive to better themselves on their own. Also, fairness aside, I've seen no indication that the nation is any better off (in fact, maybe worse) since women got the vote.

Here's a comment that I received from posting the above on Facebook.

Amanda Caukwell - my fathers ancestors in Yorkshire were yeoman farmers. until I began researching the family tree I had no idea that they were voters because they either employed a man or owned/rented more than five acres. This was important as it meant they had status. When the London landowners put rents up many upped and went to Canada and in 1700's questions were asked in parliament about the great Methodist Yorkshire exodus. This was a major problem for the gentry since the land was being abandoned by families who had farmed it for generations and the parts who stayed- my immediate ancestors-stayed because they did not have the money to go or to rent. Many a boy with a poor start could end up being an employer and thus have a vote. If you don't contribute you can't vote. harsh but fair.



buddeshepherd said...

Like it makes a damn bit of difference...

Pumice said...

In principle I am in favor of qualifications on the right to vote. In reality what happens is that the elites in power at the time gimmick the system to eliminate the people who disagree with them. An example was the reading requirement during reconstruction. It seemed logical but different tests were given to people based on skin color.

Grace and peace.

Gail said...

Sometimes I wonder if it matters.

Last time I voted the electronic voting booth changed my presidential choice, I kid you not. I went back and rechecked before I entered...there it was...NOT the choice I had made. I changed it. When back to check it again and that time it was correct.

I sadly have little faith in any of the process anymore.

Lady Locust said...

I see both sides. If it is something that will effect property taxes, then I think property owners should vote. Folks say well, it's covered w/ rent if there are rentals. The issue here is that there are so many rent subsidies which again are payed by the tax payers. Minorities do seem to be targeted. By this I mean for example: vote to increase increase sin taxes. With the number of smokers vs. the number of non-smokers, even if every smoker voted 'No,' it would pass (as it usually does) because of the numbers. (I am not a smoker, just an example.) If we are voting for the presidency, that effects all citizens so all citizens should be able to vote. The people who are effected should be the ones who vote on any given topic (my meager opinion.) Does that make any sense?

Gorges Smythe said...

It USED to nationally, Budd. It STILL does locally.

Once again, Pumice, FAIRNESS ASIDE, has the overall effect of the black vote been positive or negative?

Nor do i, Gail. I said from the beginning that the reason for electronic voting was because it left no paper trail to look for corruption.

I understand what you're saying, LL, and even agree with it for most part. However, from a strictly factual outlook, allowing the have-not's to vote, means that they will invariably turn socialist. Thus, since there will always be more have-not's than haves, the nation will eventually become socialist. Furthermore, since socialism invariably kills the goose that lays the golden egg, the society will collapse and a tyranny will develop.