Should people have to own 1/5 of an acre of land to vote?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nothing, and I'm not getting your point, since absolutely no one infringes upon the rights of the welfare whore city dwellers.

this suggestion would.

[A18]

That's your ridiculous opinion that there is a right to power that is not your own.

I agree, though, that giving every county a vote in one branch of state legislatures is a better solution.

[Bono]

That's your ridiculous opinion that there is a right to power that is not your own.

I agree, though, that giving every county a vote in one branch of state legislatures is a better solution.

They'd just change county borders.

[A18]

That's your ridiculous opinion that there is a right to power that is not your own.

I agree, though, that giving every county a vote in one branch of state legislatures is a better solution.

They'd just change county borders.

Who would? The country chamber of the legislature wouldn't allow it.

[2952-0-0]

Maybe A18 should be learning from Pol Pot on how to solve this problem. Force everyone in the cities out and anyone who disagrees gets shot.

[bgwah]

No, ing idiot idea.

Unless Philip wants to spark a Socialist Revolution, then it might work very well!

[A18]

Anything to kill some socialists.

[J.R. Brown]

If there is a right to vote, there is a right to infringe upon every freedom of every man and woman in the country. In short, if there is a right to vote, there are no other rights.

Why are you always trying to interpret the Constitution in a way that limits the scope of American freedom? Your interpretation of this legal document may be correct, but the Constitution is more than just a legal document. It's an idea that our fore fathers risked their lives and even died to create. It's an idea that our brothers and sisters are dying for right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 The rights that were bestowed upon us by God. Voting may be the legal civic term for chosing our leaders, but it comes down to letting the people rule their own government. WE HAVE THE RIGHT, not given by any document or any person or group of people, but by God or whatever you believe put you on this Earth.

You spew out your complex legal interpretations, but in the end the only thing that anybody will understand is freedom, which is embodied in everything we do everyday of our lives in this country. After all of what you've learned about the complexities of the Constitution and the United States government, you seem to have missed this basic principle in which our country was founded. From everything that you have been saying I have come to the conclusion that you are obviously against any form of democracy in this country and basically support an aristocratic govenment, which a majority of this country would NEVER support.

[Bono]

If there is a right to vote, there is a right to infringe upon every freedom of every man and woman in the country. In short, if there is a right to vote, there are no other rights.

Why are you always trying to interpret the Constitution in a way that limits the scope of American freedom? Your interpretation of this legal document may be correct, but the Constitution is more than just a legal document. It's an idea that our fore fathers risked their lives and even died to create. It's an idea that our brothers and sisters are dying for right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 The rights that were bestowed upon us by God. Voting may be the legal civic term for chosing our leaders, but it comes down to letting the people rule their own government. WE HAVE THE RIGHT, not given by any document or any person or group of people, but by God or whatever you believe put you on this Earth.

You spew out your complex legal interpretations, but in the end the only thing that anybody will understand is freedom, which is embodied in everything we do everyday of our lives in this country. After all of what you've learned about the complexities of the Constitution and the United States government, you seem to have missed this basic principle in which our country was founded. From everything that you have been saying I have come to the conclusion that you are obviously against any form of democracy in this country and basically support an aristocratic govenment, which a majority of this country would NEVER support.

the founding fahters wanted exactly an aristocratic republic, not a democracy. they loathed democracy(and they were right).

[W in 2004]

No, people should not be required to own land in order to vote.

[J.R. Brown]

If there is a right to vote, there is a right to infringe upon every freedom of every man and woman in the country. In short, if there is a right to vote, there are no other rights.

Why are you always trying to interpret the Constitution in a way that limits the scope of American freedom? Your interpretation of this legal document may be correct, but the Constitution is more than just a legal document. It's an idea that our fore fathers risked their lives and even died to create. It's an idea that our brothers and sisters are dying for right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 The rights that were bestowed upon us by God. Voting may be the legal civic term for chosing our leaders, but it comes down to letting the people rule their own government. WE HAVE THE RIGHT, not given by any document or any person or group of people, but by God or whatever you believe put you on this Earth.

You spew out your complex legal interpretations, but in the end the only thing that anybody will understand is freedom, which is embodied in everything we do everyday of our lives in this country. After all of what you've learned about the complexities of the Constitution and the United States government, you seem to have missed this basic principle in which our country was founded. From everything that you have been saying I have come to the conclusion that you are obviously against any form of democracy in this country and basically support an aristocratic govenment, which a majority of this country would NEVER support.

the founding fahters wanted exactly an aristocratic republic, not a democracy. they loathed democracy(and they were right).

They were split. John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Federalists wanted an aristocracy, but Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party who's purpose was to give the country back to the people, and I don't think all of those people fought a war with the British just to hand their country over to a bunch of aristocrats.

[A18]

The Democratic-Republican party supported landownership requirements to vote as well.

[J.R. Brown]

The Democratic-Republican party supported landownership requirements to vote as well.

So, you're supporting 18th Century ideas? Congratulations.

This country was designed to move forward not back.

Do you even realize how ridiculous this idea is? If we were to poll the American public and ask them if they would prefer a Democracy or an Aristocratic government similar to what you are proposing, I guarantee that 85-90% of the public would support a Democracy. You people have become so out of touch with reality that you actually believe that these ideas are legitimate proposals that people would actually support. Maybe elite, land-owning people like yourself, but the majority of the public would support an open Democracy.

[Emsworth]

The Founders' views of who should and should not vote are outdated and irrelevant. The application of such views would deny voting rights to women, African Americans, and so forth.

[A18]

The Democratic-Republican party supported landownership requirements to vote as well.

So, you're supporting 18th Century ideas? Congratulations.

This country was designed to move forward not back.

Do you even realize how ridiculous this idea is? If we were to poll the American public and ask them if they would prefer a Democracy or an Aristocratic government similar to what you are proposing, I guarantee that 85-90% of the public would support a Democracy. You people have become so out of touch with reality that you actually believe that these ideas are legitimate proposals that people would actually support. Maybe elite, land-owning people like yourself, but the majority of the public would support an open Democracy.

Depends how you ask the question. Take a poll in Illinois and ask, "Do you think Chicago should be able to make laws for the entire state?"

I agree that giving every county a vote in state legislatures is a much better way to curb the influence of cities.

Let me remind you that the Bill of Rights is not democratic.

[Alcon]

The Democratic-Republican party supported landownership requirements to vote as well.

So, you're supporting 18th Century ideas? Congratulations.

This country was designed to move forward not back.

Do you even realize how ridiculous this idea is? If we were to poll the American public and ask them if they would prefer a Democracy or an Aristocratic government similar to what you are proposing, I guarantee that 85-90% of the public would support a Democracy. You people have become so out of touch with reality that you actually believe that these ideas are legitimate proposals that people would actually support. Maybe elite, land-owning people like yourself, but the majority of the public would support an open Democracy.

Depends how you ask the question. Take a poll in Illinois and ask, "Do you think Chicago should be able to make laws for the entire state?"

I agree that giving every county a vote in state legislatures is a much better way to curb the influence of cities.

Let me remind you that the Bill of Rights is not democratic.

Take that poll and the majority answer may very well be "yes" because of Chicago's share of the poll.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Chicago doesn't make the rules for the rest of the state. If everyone in a state besides Chicago votes against them, Chicago loses. But that doesn't happen because enough people in the state agree with Chicago, and a majority share Chicago's opinion. So the majority wins. It's fair.

[Emsworth]

I agree that giving every county a vote in state legislatures is a much better way to curb the influence of cities.

And why should the influence of the cities be curbed? Because they disagree with you?

[A18]

Same reason the influence of large states should be curbed. To protect the interests of smaller areas.

[Alcon]

Same reason the influence of large states should be curbed. To protect the interests of smaller areas.

So, in other words, you support the minority making law for the majority?

Well, what a kettle of fish we have here!

[A18]

Same reason the influence of large states should be curbed. To protect the interests of smaller areas.

So, in other words, you support the minority making law for the majority?

Well, what a kettle of fish we have here!

No, I support a bicameral legislature, with one house representing counties, and the other representing people. Thus, a balance between majority and geographic rule.

[Alcon]

Same reason the influence of large states should be curbed. To protect the interests of smaller areas.

So, in other words, you support the minority making law for the majority?

Well, what a kettle of fish we have here!

No, I support a bicameral legislature, with one house representing counties, and the other representing people. Thus, a balance between majority and geographic rule.

Ah, the geographic rule. County rights - that's certainly a new one.

Now, I feel that I am also being supressed by people wearing green shirts. Can we please also create a shirt colour legislature?

[A18]

If it's a new one, why did it exist from the beginning of the United States all the way up until the 1960s, particularly in many southern and western legislatures? No, I'm afraid your idea is the new one. You just don't want to deal with the basic facts.

Areas have an inherent right to self-rule. People should be able to move freely from one area to another and expect, spare some uniformity, a choice.

[Alcon]

If it's a new one, why did it exist from the beginning of the United States all the way up until the 1960s, particularly in many southern and western legislatures? No, I'm afraid your idea is the new one. You just don't want to deal with the basic facts.

Areas have an inherent right to self-rule. People should be able to move freely from one area to another and expect, spare some uniformity, a choice.

So, out of curiosity, what if within counties, townships begin to be annoyed that they are being ruled by other parts of the counties?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

that's an interesting idea since my city takes up about 2/3 of my county. My city is liberal, but the rest of the country is rather conservative. So should the rest of the county be able to ban strip clubs here because they don't like it?