Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2014, 11:20:34 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Individual Politics (Moderators: Grad Students are the Worst, Torie, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Should voting ever be tied to land ownership?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: Should voting ever be tied to land ownership?
yes   -5 (13.5%)
no   -32 (86.5%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 31

Author Topic: Should voting ever be tied to land ownership?  (Read 2116 times)
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72240
United Kingdom


View Profile
« on: October 22, 2004, 08:56:35 pm »
Ignore

Philip's idea, and quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard from him. Which is saying a lot.

My vote of course is no.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8654


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2004, 09:12:58 pm »
Ignore

No, if it involves elected offices.

However, if the subject is a special taxing area for an improvement such as a street, sidewalk, or stoplight, then the answer could be yes. If the area is proposed to be imposed only on a few owners, for their benefit, the landowners should be able to "opt out" by majority vote.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18731
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2004, 09:43:27 pm »
Ignore

Of course. :p
Logged
Mr. Fresh
faulfrisch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1518
United States
Political Matrix
E: -0.45, S: 2.17

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2004, 09:46:04 pm »
Ignore

Nay.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8654


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2004, 11:31:28 pm »
Ignore

No, if it involves elected offices.

However, if the subject is a special taxing area for an improvement such as a street, sidewalk, or stoplight, then the answer could be yes. If the area is proposed to be imposed only on a few owners, for their benefit, the landowners should be able to "opt out" by majority vote.

BTW, what I describe is the law in IL, and I suspect in other states as well. The number of properties involved is determined,  and voting is done by a notarized petition.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 23, 2004, 12:35:39 am »
Ignore

Yes, in one house of the state legislature
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29661
United States
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2004, 01:23:09 am »

This pretty much sums up my opinion:



Actually, I couldn't find an image that just said "no." But that is my position. Phillip, or anyone, explain why the hell this idea is even slightly reasonable. It makes NO sense.
Logged

n/c
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8654


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2004, 01:49:37 pm »
Ignore

This pretty much sums up my opinion:



Actually, I couldn't find an image that just said "no." But that is my position. Phillip, or anyone, explain why the hell this idea is even slightly reasonable. It makes NO sense.
I'm not sure if you are objecting to my example or not. My point is that there are different form of majority vote that take place. I don't know if the original question refered to elected officials only, or all forms of majority-based governmental decisions. If the former, I agree, if the latter, I'll provide more examples.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29661
United States
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2004, 01:51:38 pm »

This pretty much sums up my opinion:



Actually, I couldn't find an image that just said "no." But that is my position. Phillip, or anyone, explain why the hell this idea is even slightly reasonable. It makes NO sense.
I'm not sure if you are objecting to my example or not. My point is that there are different form of majority vote that take place. I don't know if the original question refered to elected officials only, or all forms of majority-based governmental decisions. If the former, I agree, if the latter, I'll provide more examples.

That I'm fine with. But anything other than something that specifically affects the property owners more is unacceptable. It's the political view I must hate outside of extreme right and left-wingism. There is no reason behind it other than that it would benefit them.
Logged

n/c
black and white band photos
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72240
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2004, 01:53:42 pm »
Ignore

It's logical in muon's example. However, Philip's plan goes far beyond it, and implies that land owners should have a larger say in things such as how the education system is ran, or social issues. Does that make any sense?
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56637
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2004, 02:34:25 pm »
Ignore

Hell no!
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29661
United States
View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2004, 02:59:25 pm »

It's logical in muon's example. However, Philip's plan goes far beyond it, and implies that land owners should have a larger say in things such as how the education system is ran, or social issues. Does that make any sense?

None whatsoever. I have never, ever heard a logical explanation. It seems to just be greed to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect not.
Logged

n/c
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2004, 03:39:43 pm »
Ignore

It's one house in a bicameral legislature.
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29661
United States
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2004, 03:44:09 pm »

It's one house in a bicameral legislature.

You just basically said that it is one house in a legislature of two chambers. That doesn't support anything. You just said the same thing, except with fancier wording. Please actually explain your position to me.
Logged

n/c
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2004, 03:50:39 pm »
Ignore

Because you act as if this allows landowners to outvote popular will. All it does is give them a veto.

I already explained why. I think that 7 billion people in one close spot shouldn't have the absolute say in what goes on in the rest of the country, even if there's only 7 million there.
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29661
United States
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2004, 03:56:49 pm »

Because you act as if this allows landowners to outvote popular will. All it does is give them a veto.

I already explained why. I think that 7 billion people in one close spot shouldn't have the absolute say in what goes on in the rest of the country, even if there's only 7 million there.
This assumes that one person is better than all of the others, or more capable of making decisions, because they own property. The electoral college already gives land owners a big benefit: a vote in Wyoming is worth nearly five times a vote in California.

This is inherently unfair: there is no reason someone's vote should be worth more because they live on a farm.
Logged

n/c
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2004, 04:01:28 pm »
Ignore

If you don't live in an area, you're less fit to make decisions for it. And who said anything about farms? All you need is 1/5 of an acre.
Logged
Aegir
Guest
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2004, 04:03:26 pm »

No way!
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2004, 04:07:30 pm »
Ignore

The House of Representatives could have full control over the budget. Since that's funded by the taxpayers at large.

Perhaps the Senate could control revenue from property taxes. Dunno.
Logged
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29661
United States
View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2004, 04:08:40 pm »

If you don't live in an area, you're less fit to make decisions for it. And who said anything about farms? All you need is 1/5 of an acre.

I happen to own (well, be the son of the owners of) 2 acres of rural land, and agree. However, there is no need for a second legislative body. Local issues should be localized, in my view. However, statewide and nationwide issues should mean a vote in Brooklyn is a vote in Searchlight, Nevada is a vote in Eagle, Alaska is a vote in The Woodlands, Texas.
Logged

n/c
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47611


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2004, 04:41:46 pm »
Ignore

I'd much rather just sell votes at a dollar a pop, unlimited purchase, than attach voting to anything so antiquaited as land ownership.

Heck one condo in NYC is worth more than a dozen farms in the economically useless parts of the nation.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

DanielX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5165
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

P
View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2004, 04:55:10 pm »
Ignore

Like it was back in 1800? Hell no.
Logged

Yankee Capitalist Scum!
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18788
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2004, 07:56:45 pm »
Ignore

If you don't live in an area, you're less fit to make decisions for it. And who said anything about farms? All you need is 1/5 of an acre.

I say no, but I agree with Phillip's logic - local control is good. We knew back in 1776 that a King and Parliament all the way across the ocean, with no representation at all from ourselves, did NOT know what was best for us, we did. Since they decided to butt into our business, we booted them out.

The reason I say no though, is because many residents in an area do not own property - they can rent apartments though and live there on a permanent basis. In modern times, very smart, knowledgeable, and intelligent people do not own land - especially in cities. I think proof of residence should be the criterium. However, for voting on things like property taxes and zoning laws (things that affect land), it may be good to have to own land to vote on it. So I voted yes, but it is situational.
Logged

A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2004, 12:53:03 am »
Ignore

The point is to give densely populated areas less influence in one house, thus resulting in more local control.
Logged
iosip
Guest
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2004, 02:29:33 am »

anyone who supports limiting the right to vote to only those who own land should be stripped of their u.s. citizenship and deported.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines