Talk Elections

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.

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.

Of course. :p

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.

Yes, in one house of the state legislature

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.

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?

Hell no!

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.

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.

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.

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.

No way!

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.

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.

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.

Like it was back in 1800? Hell no.

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.

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

anyone who supports limiting the right to vote to only those who own land should be stripped of their u.s. citizenship and deported.

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.

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


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.

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.

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

John Dibble also supported it.

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.