Should voting ever be tied to land ownership?

[A18]

Anyone who says sh!t like that should be beheaded on a high resolution DVD (two for a dollar).

The point is to give densely populated areas less influence in one house, thus resulting in more local control.

That's the Senate, my friend. And 50% of our legislative population going to 10% (at most) of the population is a bit, uh, how do you phrase it? Stupid.

ONCE AGAIN!! I'M TALKING ABOUT STATE LEGISLATURES!!!

As for the 50 to 10 thing, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[freedomburns]

Has to be one of the STUPIDEST ideas I have ever heard of. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Has to be one of the STUPIDEST ideas I have ever heard of. 

And Philip claims it's a moderate one. LOL!

So far he's the only one to actually support it in posting, and almost 90% of the forum are opposed.

[A18]

Yeah. If freedomburns think it's stupid, that proves it.

John Dibble also supported it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I say no

[A18]

I voted yes

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He said only in issues that actually involve land ownership though, such as property taxes and zoning laws. I doubt he would support the idea as you propose it.