Should voting ever be tied to land ownership?

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.