Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?



 
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old August 25th, 2007, 1:58 pm
Yoana's Avatar
Yoana  Female.gif Yoana is offline
Assistant to Minister Granger
 
Joined: 3127 days
Location: Bulgaria
Age: 32
Posts: 6,380
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youdan View Post
why should cities populations have have a greater say in how the whole country is run? then the people who farm and own rural land Vs the city flat dewler.
They don't - not in percent. If everyone has the right to vote, everyone is equal in that respect. It's a natural law of physics that where there are more people in number, there will be more votes - how is that comparable to taking the right away from certain groups of people?!

What I meant is that if the right to vote is taken away from sane adult individuals, that's not democracy as it was meant to be by definition. Distribution of population hasn't got anything to do with that, nothing at all.



Last edited by Yoana; August 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pm.
Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old August 25th, 2007, 6:36 pm
Youdan Youdan is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 3114 days
Posts: 527
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

But if they don't use their rights to vote should they lose it. Rights have responsibilities If they are not responsibile enough to use their rights should they then lose that right? Voting districts or ridings are based on the number of eligible voters in an area. If only 1/3 of the eligible voters vote shouldn't then the riding size change. Example Say each riding has 20,000 eligible voters but in one riding only 5,000 vote on average per election but in an other riding of the same eligible size 12,000 vote on average per election should the riding sizes change then. One candidate elected per number of votes cast not on the number of eligible voters?

so if less then 50% of eligible voters vote there would be 50% less politicans.



Last edited by Youdan; August 25th, 2007 at 6:56 pm.
  #43  
Old August 25th, 2007, 6:52 pm
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Green Staff
 
Joined: 2770 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,652
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

I don't think that people should lose the right to vote if they don't use it - that loss should be reserved for felons and others who actively forfeited their place in society, instead of passively. But that might be off-topic for this thread.

On-topic: If they did pass a rule making only property owners eligable to vote, how much property do you need to own? What I'd do if they passed this law is find a nice, cheap parcel of land...maybe 100 x 100 feet somewhere. Then I'd sell 1 inch x 1 inch squares to people for $5 or so, plant a little flag in that part saying "This parcel of land is property of John Smith", and in that way re-enfranchise 1.44 million voters. I'd then donate the rest of the money to any politician who fights to overturn the law.


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #44  
Old August 25th, 2007, 8:05 pm
Youdan Youdan is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 3114 days
Posts: 527
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

or how about voting for parties only at the national level ie percentage of votes per party equals a number of seats in the lower house. then every vote counts. number of eliglble voters to the number of seats. Say for every 25,000 eligible voters equals one seat in th elower house.. But based on the percentage of total who do vote each party gets. not just the candidate who take the most votes in each riding.
party #1 gets 35 % of the total vote they get 35% of the total seats in the lower house.
Party#2 gets 40% vote they get 40% of the seats etc.
Shouldn't a voter be a contributing member of their society?
Then then people would have to determine what is a contributing member is and isn't.
Should non citizens living and working or going to school on visas living in a community do they have the right to vote too?
Should a person convicted of a crime still be eligible to vote or those severing time in jail ?



Last edited by Youdan; August 25th, 2007 at 9:13 pm.
  #45  
Old August 25th, 2007, 8:53 pm
Pox Voldius's Avatar
Pox Voldius  Undisclosed.gif Pox Voldius is offline
The Dark Lord's Faithful Servant
 
Joined: 3693 days
Location: East of Omaha
Age: 30
Posts: 2,125
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youdan View Post
but some ridings (electoral distircts) have more people then others. So how dose one vote count? or urban Vs rural why should cities populations have have a greater say in how the whole country is run? then the people who farm and own rural land Vs the city flat dewler.
If I remember my history & government classes correctly...
In the U.S., we had this sort of issue come up 200+ years ago when they were trying to work out how each state would be represented in the federal government. Big states of course thought they should have more representatives because they had more people. Small states were afraid they wouldn't be heard. What they came up with was the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the Senate, each state gets 2 senators, regardless of size & population. In the House, the number of representatives is proportional to the size of the population. And for a bill to become federal law, it has to pass in both the House and the Senate.


__________________
  #46  
Old August 26th, 2007, 1:14 am
Lyra Black  Undisclosed.gif Lyra Black is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 3597 days
Posts: 720
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youdan View Post
So how dose sliding tax show equaltiy and fairnress for all instaed of flat tax rate? dose the government punish those work have better jobs by having to pay higher tax rates. or get a promotion only to slide into a higher tax bracket and take home less money. or work extra hours only to be punished by paying higher percentage of their earnings to the tax man. just as a sliding vote dosen't seem fair for all how dose sliding tax system seem fair for those getting an income.
Most progressive tax systems are designed so that being pushed into a higher tax bracket does not mean you take less money home, although you do take a lower percentage of your income home. I've worked in 3 different countries in three different continents and this has been the case in all 3. It generally works something like this:
No tax on the first $5,000
5% tax on earnings between $30,000 and $5,000
10% tax on earnings between $30,000 and $50,000
20% tax on earnings over $50,000
So, a person earning $49,000 will pay no tax on $5,000, 5% tax on $25,000, 10% tax on $19,000:
tax=25,000*5/100 + 19,000*10/100=$3150
Say this worker has a pay increase of $2000, resulting in a salary of $51,000 which pushes this worker into the higher tax bracket:
tax=25,000*5/100 + 20,000*10/100 + 1000*20/100=$3450
In this example, a salary rise of $2000 results in $300 extra tax so the worker still benefits from the pay rise. It's easy to prove in general that there is no way a salary increase can result in less net income, but I won't bore you with the proof here.


__________________
The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.

The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible.

Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.

There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum.

Arthur C. Clarke (19172008)
  #47  
Old August 26th, 2007, 1:46 am
DancingMaenid  Undisclosed.gif DancingMaenid is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3342 days
Location: United States
Age: 26
Posts: 2,227
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youdan View Post
So how dose sliding tax show equaltiy and fairnress for all instaed of flat tax rate? dose the government punish those work have better jobs by having to pay higher tax rates. or get a promotion only to slide into a higher tax bracket and take home less money. or work extra hours only to be punished by paying higher percentage of their earnings to the tax man. just as a sliding vote dosen't seem fair for all how dose sliding tax system seem fair for those getting an income.
In several societies a person has to earn the right to be heard or earn the right to vote. To show the comminuty they have done something to earn the right to vote. As with the old system of voting being a landowner they have earned the right to vote by owning land.
First of all, no, I don't think it's very fair for people who earn more to have to pay a larger percentage. However, it makes sense. Let's say your annual income is only $10,000, and you're taxed 50%. It'll be very hard to support yourself on $5,000. Shoot, it's hard enough on $10,000 these days.

Now let's say you earn $500,000 annually. You're taxed 50%. $250,000 isn't all that shabby. If you live a wealthy lifestyle or have a lot of dependents (though you can declare dependents on your taxes), it might be a stretch, but you'll probably be able to maintain a comfortable life with that amount of money, especially assuming you own your house.

(Personally, I think a 50% taxrate is a bit extreme in either case, and don't really advocate that for anyone, but I chose it out of simplicity.)

Cost of living plays a role, here.

Also, I don't think the old system is applicable today. In the past, you had situations like the serfdoms where you had wealthy, powerful landowners who would rent land to peasants. Owning land was a sign of independence and power. This mindset carried over to when Europeans started settling in North America. A large number of people were farmers. Having land that they could farm was vital to them. In some cases, landowners had a lot of power. For instance, plantation owners grew tobacco and cotton that where major cash crops.

Today, owning land, for most people, only means that you have your own house, not that you're free from being exploited by wealthy lords or are a wealthy man yourself. Not everyone who owns a house can even really afford it, as evidenced by how many people have mortgages. The implications of owning land, while similar in some ways, have changed since the olden days.


  #48  
Old August 26th, 2007, 2:22 am
Midnightsfire  Undisclosed.gif Midnightsfire is offline
Member of the Order
 
Joined: 4400 days
Posts: 8,629
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

This has seemd to have become somewhat off-topic.

I posted this in another thread:

Reestablish the progressive income tax, which rests on the principle that tax rates rise with income. This structure was in place from the beginning of WWII until the early 60s. (It is no mere coincidence that the greatest expansion of the middle class came from within this timeframe.)

Point of history that no one seems to have learned (and libertarians refuse to): No taxpayer has ever paid out 91% of their income in taxes during the aforementioned timeframe. The max rate of 91% was applied only to taxable income over $400,000. Adjusted today that would be almost $5 million. (I imagine anyone making that kind of money might be able to eke out a meager existence if he/she budgets well enough.)
To further simplfy the system, all deductions should be eliminated. So too the preferential capital gains tax. All dollars would be treated alike. A middle class family whose income is derived solely from a paycheck would not be taxed at a higher effective rate than someone whose income is derived from speculating on Wall Street.

Now that was federal income tax. State and local taxes tend to weigh even more on the middle class and lower income workers. To right this, the federal government could create a system of rewards and penalties when distributing revenue-sharing money to the states. The more progressive a state's tax structure, the more federal aid it would receive.
And then there is corporate income tax.

With sharply lower rates and a variety of tax concessions, corporations today pay less income tax than corporations 50 years ago. Then, corporations accounted for 39% of all income tax revenue; individuals supplied 61%. Currently the corporate share is below the 19% mark while the individual share rose to over 81%.

To restore some measure of balance, the top corporate tax rate should at least be raised above the highest personal rate of 39.6%. In the 1950s, it was 52%. By 1996, it was 35%. A variey of corporate deductions should be eliminated or scaled back. these include the essentially unlimited deduction for interest payments and the carryover deduction of losses, both of which fuel mergers and takeovers. Also foreign tax provisions need to be amended so that multinational companies no longer would be able to move income around the world to escape payment of taxes.


__________________
All fighters are pig-headed some way or another: some part of them always thinks they know better than you about something. Truth is: even if they're wrong, even if that one thing is going to be the ruin of them, if you can beat that last bad out of them... they ain't fighters at all.

---Eddie Scrap-Iron Dupris (Million Dollar Baby)
  #49  
Old August 26th, 2007, 4:12 pm
Yoana's Avatar
Yoana  Female.gif Yoana is offline
Assistant to Minister Granger
 
Joined: 3127 days
Location: Bulgaria
Age: 32
Posts: 6,380
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youdan View Post
or how about voting for parties only at the national level ie percentage of votes per party equals a number of seats in the lower house. then every vote counts. number of eliglble voters to the number of seats.
That's how it is in my country, but I don't think it's very good, because if you vote for parties, you can't really pick the person who will represent you in the ruling of the state. He/She gets picked by his/her superiors within the party and gets elected according to his/her number on the list of candidates, which is also detremined by party seniors.


  #50  
Old August 26th, 2007, 6:25 pm
Alastor's Avatar
Alastor  Male.gif Alastor is offline
Chief Warlock
 
Joined: 4205 days
Posts: 6,067
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoana View Post
That's how it is in my country, but I don't think it's very good, because if you vote for parties, you can't really pick the person who will represent you in the ruling of the state. He/She gets picked by his/her superiors within the party and gets elected according to his/her number on the list of candidates, which is also detremined by party seniors.
On the other hand voting purely for individuals could give a quite odd result too. There are ways to combine party an individual. Like each party has a list of candidates and the total number of votes for candidates determines the number of seats the party gets. So if a party gets x seats from a given district, those seats are given to the x individuals on their list in that district, who got the most of those votes.

But this is not exactly on topic.


__________________



  #51  
Old August 27th, 2007, 7:42 am
YellowRose's Avatar
YellowRose  Female.gif YellowRose is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3457 days
Location: Doing Wheelies
Age: 31
Posts: 2,259
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

I agree with people who state that doing so would cut out of the voting a lot of younger people and people who have financial problems, so I just don't agree with it. I do think that voting should be for the individual who pays taxes (or in the case of students , who get their taxes paid by their parents) whether income or school or even garbage collection etc..


__________________
  #52  
Old August 27th, 2007, 5:02 pm
Youdan Youdan is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 3114 days
Posts: 527
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Who dose vote then? We know that less then 50% of eligible voters actually go out and vote most of the time.


  #53  
Old August 27th, 2007, 5:25 pm
Midnightsfire  Undisclosed.gif Midnightsfire is offline
Member of the Order
 
Joined: 4400 days
Posts: 8,629
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youdan View Post
Who dose vote then? We know that less then 50% of eligible voters actually go out and vote most of the time.
Who votes, who doesn't and why

(take note that the idea of property ownership is nonexistent in that link. Simply becuase such an idea is considered unconstitutional)


__________________
All fighters are pig-headed some way or another: some part of them always thinks they know better than you about something. Truth is: even if they're wrong, even if that one thing is going to be the ruin of them, if you can beat that last bad out of them... they ain't fighters at all.

---Eddie Scrap-Iron Dupris (Million Dollar Baby)
  #54  
Old August 28th, 2007, 2:54 am
rigdoctorbri's Avatar
rigdoctorbri  Male.gif rigdoctorbri is offline
Purveyor of Prophesy
 
Joined: 3417 days
Location: Arguing with myself
Age: 42
Posts: 2,336
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

We are a capitalist society, motivated by growth and prosperity, fueled by those of wealth and means. We are not Communist or Socialist or Facist or Dictatorship by edict of Constitution. We are driven by the Stock Market, and our businesspeople. They have their fingers on the pulse of the nation. If the property owners and businesspeople don't make the right moves in the market, then our economy, and thus our nation as a whole suffers.

Stockholders have the right to vote their shares in their company, and vote based upon shares owned, with those who have more at stake receiving more of a voice in the company's fate. I have always viewed any country as a business owned by the governed. They are all shareholders. So, should they receive more of a voice in their country (company) based on if they have more at stake?

It is an ambiguous question. The truth is, regardless of how much one has financially invested in the country, everyone has just as much to lose as the next one. If it is not money, then it is basic sanitation. If not sanitation then it is foreign aggressors. If it is not foreign aggressors, it is child welfare. We all have just as much at stake as the next person. We all have our freedom at stake, and without that all is for naught!


__________________
Special thanks to storyteller for the Banner
Thanks to all who voted for me in the Through The Trapdoor: Fourth Challenge!

When faced with a choice between two evils, I always choose the one I have never tried before.
  #55  
Old August 28th, 2007, 5:22 am
Youdan Youdan is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 3114 days
Posts: 527
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Long term residence and those who are wealthier are most likely to vote.
That says to me land or home owners to me.
Where short term resdidence and those who don't have roots in the community and those who are less educated and poor. less likely to vote or even register to vote.
That says to me they are not land or homes owners.



Last edited by Youdan; August 28th, 2007 at 5:25 am.
  #56  
Old August 28th, 2007, 5:33 am
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Green Staff
 
Joined: 2770 days
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,652
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Even if the wealthier and more established are more likely to vote (it doesn't cost a white-collar worker wages to vote; it could cost a blue-collar worker wages to vote), I don't think the right to vote should be taken away from those who are trying to work their way up and be able to buy land. I consider myself very smart, very well educated, and quite well informed on the political process - yet I don't own an ounce of land, so I'd be disenfranchised. And I wouldn't like that!


__________________
RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
  #57  
Old August 28th, 2007, 7:06 am
DancingMaenid  Undisclosed.gif DancingMaenid is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3342 days
Location: United States
Age: 26
Posts: 2,227
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Yes, even if a certain group is less likely to vote, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the right to vote. The majority of people probably don't exercise their right to peacefully protest, but they still have the right to do so. And many non land owners do vote. I don't think my father ever owned his own house. Even after marrying my mom, the house they lived in was hers and remained in her name after the marriage. After we outgrew the house, we lived in a series of rental houses for the next ten years because my dad was trying to build his career, part of which meant that he wanted to get a job in another state, which kept us from putting down permanent roots. Yet he was the most politically passionate person I've never known. He worked on campaigns for local politicians and voted in every election.


  #58  
Old August 28th, 2007, 8:04 am
Youdan Youdan is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 3114 days
Posts: 527
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Isn't there a residency clause when registing to vote?


  #59  
Old August 28th, 2007, 8:53 am
Picko's Avatar
Picko  Male.gif Picko is offline
Superman
 
Joined: 4398 days
Location: Dancing in his rainbow pants
Age: 29
Posts: 5,201
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

The cynic in me states that such a reform would make little difference to any outcomes, the financial clout of lobbyists would ensure that the same policies are enacted anyway. And that is probably correct.

The idealist in me states that creating a voting system that unfairly favours middle-aged and old white men is probably not ideal. Particularly as it would almost eliminate the youth vote. As a result the country would lose anything resembling progressivity from its social policies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Youdan
So how dose sliding tax show equaltiy and fairnress for all instaed of flat tax rate? dose the government punish those work have better jobs by having to pay higher tax rates. or get a promotion only to slide into a higher tax bracket and take home less money. or work extra hours only to be punished by paying higher percentage of their earnings to the tax man. just as a sliding vote dosen't seem fair for all how dose sliding tax system seem fair for those getting an income.
In several societies a person has to earn the right to be heard or earn the right to vote. To show the comminuty they have done something to earn the right to vote. As with the old system of voting being a landowner they have earned the right to vote by owning land.
It's a concept called "vertical equity", the notion that unequal people make equal concessions. With that in mind, there should be a progressive tax system, where average tax and marginal tax rates increase as income increases.


__________________
Harry Potter's Friends (for the uninitiated):

Ronald Weasley is Harry's best friend, best known to his peers as living proof that God doesn't exist.

Hermione Granger is Harry's other friend. She possesses the "plot device", a mystical artifact famed for its ability to counter the feared Wryter's Block.

Ginny Weasley The girl Harry loves. Without her, Harry would have been just as emo in the sixth book as he was in the fifth book.

Source: Uncyclopedia
  #60  
Old August 28th, 2007, 9:20 am
Yoana's Avatar
Yoana  Female.gif Yoana is offline
Assistant to Minister Granger
 
Joined: 3127 days
Location: Bulgaria
Age: 32
Posts: 6,380
Re: The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri View Post
We are a capitalist society, motivated by growth and prosperity, fueled by those of wealth and means. We are not Communist or Socialist or Facist or Dictatorship by edict of Constitution. We are driven by the Stock Market, and our businesspeople. They have their fingers on the pulse of the nation. If the property owners and businesspeople don't make the right moves in the market, then our economy, and thus our nation as a whole suffers.
Aren't you first and foremost a democracy? Isn't the basic principle of democracy ensuring everyone's right to take part in the ruling of the state?


 
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Non Harry Potter Archives

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 pm.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright its respective owners.