Should voting ever be tied to land ownership? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 12:44:56 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Should voting ever be tied to land ownership? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should voting ever be tied to land ownership?
#1
yes		  
#2
no		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 32

Author Topic: Should voting ever be tied to land ownership?  (Read 3108 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« on: October 23, 2004, 12:35:39 AM »
Yes, in one house of the state legislature
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2004, 03:39:43 PM »
It's one house in a bicameral legislature.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2004, 03:50:39 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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2004, 04:01:28 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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #4 on: October 23, 2004, 04:07:30 PM »
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
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2004, 12:53:03 AM »
The point is to give densely populated areas less influence in one house, thus resulting in more local control.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2004, 02:34:42 AM »
Anyone who says sh!t like that should be beheaded on a high resolution DVD (two for a dollar).

Quote from: Alcon on October 24, 2004, 02:31:19 AM
Quote from: Philip on October 24, 2004, 12:53:03 AM
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.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2004, 02:22:15 PM »
Yeah. If freedomburns think it's stupid, that proves it.

John Dibble also supported it.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2004, 02:24:52 PM »
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 14 queries.