Who Should Vote?

Should voting be restricted to land owners, stock holders and military? These are the people that actually own a piece of the U.S. or are fighting for it. People on welfare or the poor are always going to vote for the party that promise to give them more for doing nothing. Do they have a right to demand what the government does with yours and my money?

7 Responses to “Who Should Vote?”

  1. His Divine Shadow Says:

    You remind me of that movie Starship Troopers, were people have to EARN citizenship through military service, anybody else is just a civilian. It does make sense to have a system that works that way. Too bad it is 100% against the US Constitution.

    On a more present day note, I think everyone should be allowed to vote, and votes for Ron Paul should be tossed. In other words, only serious voters should count.

  2. lash Says:

    no, all citizens of this country of age or serving in the military at election time should go vote! this year above all!

  3. Jerry S Says:

    no one has the right to demand what the government does
    with your and my money.
    another side of the coin, taxcuts for the rich who do not need
    tax cuts, does that make sense?
    many poor people do not want a free lunch, they want a chance,an oppportunity. try and look at things with a more
    open mind and happy holidays to you.

  4. Chantal G Says:

    I like the Robert Heinlein idea that voting should be restricted to (if I recall correctly):

    * Military personnel.
    * Teachers.*
    * People with college degrees.*
    * Civil servants (incl. firemen, police, doctors, nurses.*

    *After ten years of service.

    In other words, to people who are or should be educated enough to know the issues, or people who are directly serving the country–by defending it, by educating its children, or by ensuring that it runs efficiently and serves its people.

    Basically, if you were willing to serve your country for ten years, then you _earned_ citizenship. Citizenship granted you the right to vote and to hold public office.

    If you didn’t choose to serve your country, you could pay taxes and be granted the right to government services, but that was all that paying your taxes gave you.

  5. N. Cognito Says:

    I think it should be restricted to those who can pass a simple, uniform test that verifies their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Any other method of qualification would lend itself to the further advance of tyranny. Barring that, the current system is probably best even though it permits complete idiots to vote.

  6. tehabwa Says:


    Why don’t you just personally choose a really tiny minority to be the owners, and appoint the rest of us as their slaves and be done with it?


    First, it’s simply not true that only people who own land or stock or are in the military work.

    Most working people can’t afford to buy land or stocks.

    But even more important is a concept you’re never heard of: government by the consent of the governed.

    The idea is that it’s wrong for only some people to completely impose their will on others, who have no say in the government that rules them.

    As it is, the government is too much in the hands of the rich, who take a LOT more of your tax money than the poor do.

    I gather you hate the very idea of there being a middle class. Fortunately, most people disagree with you.

    If you would rather not live in a free country, but be owned by an aristocracy, you could move to another country. You’d probably be very happy in a country where the citizens have no say in their government.

  7. Colin C Says:

    In the past, all types of methods were used to deny the right to vote to people (unfair tests, ancestry, race, gender). To even contemplate denying people the right to vote is the most un-American view someone could have.

    The military personal you speak of fight for our right to voice our points of view through voting.

    One more point: don’t the middle class and rich "always vote for the party that promises to them them more for doing nothing"? Of course they do!

    Perhaps voting should only be denied to people who come up with ridiculous ideas on the Internet.