The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

[rigdoctorbri]

There has been some recent buzz that I think worthy of discussion. On the surface it seems ludicris to revert back to an old custom of voting in the USA by allowing only property owners to vote, but some strong arguments can be made in favor of it. Personally, I still think it is absurd, but let's talk about it anyway.

Can you think of any good reasons to only let property owners (and by that I mean landowners, or business owners) vote in local, county, state, or federal elections, or vote on pieces of legislation?

All in favor, Raise your....ummmm....Mouse!!!!

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

There has been some recent buzz that I think worthy of discussion. On the surface it seems ludicris to revert back to an old custom of voting in the USA by allowing only property owners to vote, but some strong arguments can be made in favor of it. Personally, I still think it is absurd, but let's talk about it anyway.

Can you think of any good reasons to only let property owners (and by that I mean landowners, or business owners) vote in local, county, state, or federal elections, or vote on pieces of legislation?

All in favor, Raise your....ummmm....Mouse!!!!

They are more likely to understand the ballots and avoid hanging chads? (Just Kidding) That wouldn't pass the court test anyway, would it? I know that there has always been a sentiment that wanted to allow those with the "most at stake" be the ones to dominate selection of government, but it is unrealistic to think that it would be legal, IMO.

[Chris]

I too think it a very bad idea to revert to property-owners only. You cut out an entire class of politically active people that some might not realize - college students and young renters who haven't mustered up enough $ to get a down payment for a house.

Plus, half of NYC would be disenfranchised. And other cities where the majority of people rent. (No stats available @ my fingertips, but I get the impression that several major cities are majority renters).

[Pox Voldius]

^ Or Los Angeles, where even a one-bedroom house in Inglewood (between South L.A. and LAX) will cost you upwards of $200,000.

[rigdoctorbri]

Yes, those are arguments against, but, thinking objectively, do you see any points in favor? I can fathom a few:

Property owners tend to be more educated

they often have more at stake economicly

Property owners, particularly business owners, tend to better understand economy, and can make a more informed choice about whom to let handle the Nation's finances.

[Sly_Lady]

If I own a cemetery plot where I plan to be buried, would that count?

[UAM]

Although property owners tend to have more economic knowledge, some of them are a bit out of touch with the social side of things. Allowing only property/land owners to vote would seriously decrease the number of voters and skew the political agenda in favour of them, only serving to worsen the positions of those who are not yet on the property ladder.

[Sly_Lady]

What if I own a gas guzzling, shiny new Hummer that's worth more than many people's houses. Would that count?

[rigdoctorbri]

Originally Posted by Sly_Lady

What if I own a gas guzzling, shiny new Hummer that's worth more than many people's houses. Would that count?

I think the definition of Property Owner in this case refers to a landholder. Your cemetary plot, I suppose by the strictest definition, would count, but not your Hummer. Sorry, Hummer Fans! (Granted, odds are if you have funds for a Hummer you will also be finacially stable enough to own a home)

[OldLupin]

There is the idea that landowners are people who have worked long enough and earned enough to have assets and a perspective on what is required to amass and protect such things.
It can also be argued that people who live on public assistance have a corrupted political perspective as they solely rely on the government for their subsistence and are therefore easily "bought" by political promises of further handouts.
College students similarly are impressionable and easily lead to vote as a block. In addition most have no perspective on working and trying to obtain security for themselves or their children and aren't likely to have realistic ideology as those perspectives are generally required for decisions on taxation and spending, key elements to selecting leaders. In short, it is easier to vote for giving away more money when you don’t have any.
It is easy to point to the vast differences in political ideology we see in most people from the age of 18 to the age of 30. Employment, paying taxes, having families, and self-sufficiency are all potent factors for selecting who to vote for.

[Midnightsfire]

NO.

Essentially this gives anyone with property far more political influence than anyone without. The more property the more infuence. (i.e big business)

So lets get rid of this idea. All it does is say; "Taxation without representation is a good idea."

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

NO.

Essentially this gives anyone with property far more political influence than anyone without. The more property the more infuence. (i.e big business)

So lets get rid of this idea. All it does is say; "Taxation without representation is a good idea."

Then as they are taxed more, why aren't they represented more? Landowners are taxed much more than non-landowners are. Of course there are plenty of people that wouldn't be allowed as they actually don't pay taxes, but are paid for living here.

[Chris]

To open a can of worms...seems like a recipe for some easier republican wins. If we disenfranchise whole cities, we lose a lot of voters who vote democratic - even though NYC elected republicans the last couple of mayors. I think it'd swing the voting bloc significantly to the right.
I think it'd be a very bad idea - it would also provide more incentive for people to prevent others from becoming property owners (in contrast to the "for" argument of giving people an incentive to become a property owner).

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

Yes, those are arguments against, but, thinking objectively, do you see any points in favor? I can fathom a few:

Property owners tend to be more educated

they often have more at stake economicly

Property owners, particularly business owners, tend to better understand economy, and can make a more informed choice about whom to let handle the Nation's finances.

Many property owners can't afford what they have, and some have two and three mortgages on that property. A mortgage simply means that you were able to get a loan, and judging from bankruptcy statistics, that doesn't say much at all. A truly wise person will wait until they can actually afford that property, and in some areas ownership is less advantageous than rental, as has previously been stated.
There are plenty of property owners without a formal education, such as those who were born into farming, and formal education doesn't make for "worthiness" to vote.

[Merve]

I think that giving the vote only to property owners is simply unnecessary. Those college students and poor renters who care enough about politics will take the time to educate themselves about the issues at hand and will vote. Those who don't care just won't vote. This is the reason for low voter turnout in those demographics. People who own property are more likely to vote anyway; why make it a rule? There's no need. It's unfair to the minority, and while I'm not familiar with the U.S. constitution, being a Canadian, I'm pretty sure that it upholds minority rights.

[skedaddle]

Letting only property owners vote means shutting out a fairly large portion of the voting community, people aged 18-21, who are still in college and don't own anything. That idea is totally absurd.

[DancingMaenid]

I fail to see any good points to allowing only property owners to vote.

While property owners have more to lose in some areas, that's true for other things, as well. People who don't have children aren't affected by how schools are run, but they're still expected to pay taxes that may go to the schools.

Saying that landowners might be better educated, in my opinion, is rather presumptuous. People don't own property because they're educated and aware of the world but because they can afford it. What about people who can't afford it because they spent a lot of money on getting an education? Nor is owning land a sign of maturity, necessarily. Having worked in the decorating business, and meeting a lot of owners of expensive homes, I can assure you that owning an expensive home, in itself, doesn't mean that you're a stable person or even a person who can really afford the house.

Allowing only landowners to vote would exclude a huge number of citizens who are just as affected by the majority of laws as anyone else is. It could also easily create corruption since the people voting might not care as much about the plight of the people who can't vote.

[Youdan]

I have to ask who dose vote? the vast majorty of people don't vote. If less then 50% of eligible voters vote. what are the demographics of those who do vote. Are only thsoe who are middle to upper incomes who own are also land owns are they the only ones who vote now? I believe politicans know who the voting constituency are.

[Pox Voldius]

I've yet to meet a rich property owner from the Hills (Beverly, Hollywood, etc) that wasn't totally bonkers and completely out of touch with the way the average person lives (let alone, the way poor people live) -- and I have met quite a few people from the Hills & similar areas.

I wouldn't want to have those kinds people voting on things that will affect my life, while having no say in it myself simply because I can't afford to buy property in L.A. They'd likely make decisions that would only serve to widen the gap and make things even more difficult for people who are already struggling.

[potterposse]

Anyone who is a legal citizen in the States, over eighteen, has every right to vote. Simple as that.