quote:


Colonial America, you don't own property or pay taxes, then you don't vote.
If you don't pay in then you don't have a say in where the money goes
The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a “stake in society.” Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property (and paid property taxes) or paid (other) taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes.


After the Revolution you still had to have a stake in America to vote...
You still had to contribute money to America
The American Revolution was fought in part over the issue of voting. The Revolutionaries rejected the British argument that representation in Parliament could be virtual (that is, that English members of Parliament could adequately represent the interests of the colonists). Instead, the Revolutionaries argued that government derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

This made many restrictions on voting seem to be a violation of fundamental rights. During the period immediately following the Revolution, some states replaced property qualifications with taxpaying requirements. This reflected the principle that there should be “no taxation without representation.” Other states allowed anyone who served in the army or militia to vote. Vermont was the first state to eliminate all property and taxpaying qualifications for voting.

By 1790, all states had eliminated religious requirements for voting. As a result, approximately 60 to 70 percent of adult white men could vote. During this time, six states (Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) permitted free African Americans to vote.

Opening the Vote to those who do not own property
The most significant political innovation of the early nineteenth century was the abolition of property qualifications for voting and officeholding. Hard times resulting from the Panic of 1819 led many people to demand an end to property restrictions on voting and officeholding. In 1800, just three states (Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Vermont) had universal white manhood suffrage. By 1830, ten states permitted white manhood suffrage without qualification. Eight states restricted the vote to taxpayers, and six imposed a property qualification for suffrage. In 1860, just five states limited suffrage to taxpayers and only two still imposed property qualifications. And after 1840, a number of states, mainly in the Midwest, allowed immigrants who intended to become citizens to vote.

Pressure for expansion of voting rights came from propertyless men; from territories eager to attract settlers; and from political parties seeking to broaden their base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
So, what do you think, are we OK the way it is and just as soon as the WalMartians get tired of handouts and finally go back to work and start paying taxes then they will vote to reduce the free lunch Democrats are promising for their vote, or are we going to have to either go the way of California where the taxpayers are leaving and cities go bankrupt now, as if that helps, or are we going down the path to a second revolution where we must again secure the blessings of liberty from those who would "redistribute" the wealth we created by going to school, working our way through college and working a career and paying taxes and saving for rainy days?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Should we restrict who votes to who has a stake in America, to those who own property or to those who pay taxes? Here is what the founding fathers thought...text excerpted from http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/government-and-civics/essays/winning-vote-history-voting-rights

quote:


Colonial America, you don't own property or pay taxes, then you don't vote.
If you don't pay in then you don't have a say in where the money goes
The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a “stake in society.” Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property (and paid property taxes) or paid (other) taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes.


After the Revolution you still had to have a stake in America to vote...
You still had to contribute money to America
The American Revolution was fought in part over the issue of voting. The Revolutionaries rejected the British argument that representation in Parliament could be virtual (that is, that English members of Parliament could adequately represent the interests of the colonists). Instead, the Revolutionaries argued that government derived its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

This made many restrictions on voting seem to be a violation of fundamental rights. During the period immediately following the Revolution, some states replaced property qualifications with taxpaying requirements. This reflected the principle that there should be “no taxation without representation.” Other states allowed anyone who served in the army or militia to vote. Vermont was the first state to eliminate all property and taxpaying qualifications for voting.

By 1790, all states had eliminated religious requirements for voting. As a result, approximately 60 to 70 percent of adult white men could vote. During this time, six states (Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) permitted free African Americans to vote.

Opening the Vote to those who do not own property
The most significant political innovation of the early nineteenth century was the abolition of property qualifications for voting and officeholding. Hard times resulting from the Panic of 1819 led many people to demand an end to property restrictions on voting and officeholding. In 1800, just three states (Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Vermont) had universal white manhood suffrage. By 1830, ten states permitted white manhood suffrage without qualification. Eight states restricted the vote to taxpayers, and six imposed a property qualification for suffrage. In 1860, just five states limited suffrage to taxpayers and only two still imposed property qualifications. And after 1840, a number of states, mainly in the Midwest, allowed immigrants who intended to become citizens to vote.

Pressure for expansion of voting rights came from propertyless men; from territories eager to attract settlers; and from political parties seeking to broaden their base.

The "and from political parties seeking to broaden their base" is where we are in trouble here. This is the pay for vote scheme, pay by promising to give the voter more of the taxpayer's income for their vote. This is what, IMO, the founding fathers using their common sense avoided by not changing who could vote when drawing up the Constitution and after all, that is a no brainer IMO.



So, what do you think, are we OK the way it is and just as soon as the WalMartians get tired of handouts and finally go back to work and start paying taxes then they will vote to reduce the free lunch Democrats are promising for their vote, or are we going to have to either go the way of California where the taxpayers are leaving and cities go bankrupt now, as if that helps, or are we going down the path to a second revolution where we must again secure the blessings of liberty from those who would "redistribute" the wealth we created by going to school, working our way through college and working a career and paying taxes and saving for rainy days?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger

Just in case Powergamz1's sarcasm didn't get through, let me put it plainly. This had potential to be an interesting question until you decided to insult people by saying

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
So, what do you think, are we OK the way it is and just as soon as the WalMartians get tired of handouts and finally go back to work and start paying taxes then they will vote to reduce the free lunch Democrats are promising for their vote, or are we going to have to either go the way of California where the taxpayers are leaving and cities go bankrupt now, as if that helps, or are we going down the path to a second revolution where we must again secure the blessings of liberty from those who would "redistribute" the wealth we created by going to school, working our way through college and working a career and paying taxes and saving for rainy days?

quote:

Walmartians

Those who shop exclusively at Walmart. They are identified by their outdated style of dress and hair. Most also have unusual body types and dental configurations thereby giving the impression they are natives of another planet.

Friday is the most popular night for the Walmartians to shop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0x44dPCw34


Has there ever been a more elitist dirt bag ?


I bet I could come up with questions that this douche-bag clown couldn`t answer and make him look foolish too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0x44dPCw34


Has there ever been a more elitist dirt bag ?


I bet I could come up with questions that this douche-bag clown couldn`t answer and make him look foolish too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0x44dPCw34


Has there ever been a more elitist dirt bag ?


I bet I could come up with questions that this douche-bag clown couldn`t answer and make him look foolish too.

His point is valid, if you don't take the time to know even the basics then your vote can do damage to the country since it is ill-informed, as in lacking any information except "what will personally benefit me" and not what is good for the country as in "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

Quick, who said that and do you think those on welfare voting for more entitlements are asking that same thing when they vote or do they even know who said that and even if they did would they even agree with this great man?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0x44dPCw34


Has there ever been a more elitist dirt bag ?


I bet I could come up with questions that this douche-bag clown couldn`t answer and make him look foolish too.

His point is valid, if you don't take the time to know even the basics then your vote can do damage to the country since it is ill-informed, as in lacking any information except "what will personally benefit me" and not what is good for the country as in "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

Quick, who said that and do you think those on welfare voting for more entitlements are asking that same thing when they vote or do they even know who said that and even if they did would they even agree with this great man?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Well when the "walmartians" are really the six heirs to the walmart name, are worth 90 billion, which is the total amount that the bottom 130 million people of the USA earn. I would say the walmartians already semi run the country,
Along with the 32 TRillion dollars secreted in off shore banks, which would give every country on the earth 163 million dollars each...I would say that the voting rights of anyone making less than 10 million a year worthless.
1 in in 4 americans earns less than 10$ an hour, means 145 million do not make enough money to meet their basic needs...
Indeed why worry about them, gotta pucker up and take it.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
The "and from political parties seeking to broaden their base" is where we are in trouble here. This is the pay for vote scheme, pay by promising to give the voter more of the taxpayer's income for their vote. This is what, IMO, the founding fathers using their common sense avoided by not changing who could vote when drawing up the Constitution and after all, that is a no brainer IMO.

So, what do you think, are we OK the way it is and just as soon as the WalMartians get tired of handouts and finally go back to work and start paying taxes then they will vote to reduce the free lunch Democrats are promising for their vote, or are we going to have to either go the way of California where the taxpayers are leaving and cities go bankrupt now, as if that helps, or are we going down the path to a second revolution where we must again secure the blessings of liberty from those who would "redistribute" the wealth we created by going to school, working our way through college and working a career and paying taxes and saving for rainy days?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

your vote can do damage to the country since it is ill-informed, as in lacking any information except "what will personally benefit me" and not what is good for the country

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yeah, the founding fathers did that cuz they didn't want slaves voting themselves out of a job, that of course (property to vote franchise, and slavery) have been abolished in amendments. 

The shit is long over.   Go back to repealing obamacare for the 37th time.  Teabagger constitutional and political thoughts are inept and irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0x44dPCw34


Has there ever been a more elitist dirt bag ?


I bet I could come up with questions that this douche-bag clown couldn`t answer and make him look foolish too.

His point is valid, if you don't take the time to know even the basics then your vote can do damage to the country since it is ill-informed, as in lacking any information except "what will personally benefit me" and not what is good for the country as in "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

Quick, who said that and do you think those on welfare voting for more entitlements are asking that same thing when they vote or do they even know who said that and even if they did would they even agree with this great man?