No One on Food Stamps Should Be Allowed to Vote

Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
Hmmm....so we're in agreement? Now what the hell am I suppose to do? :cool:
 
Feb 2006
15,760
4,315
California
Well Kate, Thank you for asking. I covered it here in this thread and I got a lot of hate for it:


We must work for our ice-cream. I like Haagen Dazs strawberry.
Find voter registration options in your state.
 
Nov 2013
3,057
1,453
NM
If you don’t have skin in the game, no voting for you.

...

America went from a time when only landowners were allowed to vote because they had skin in the game to a time when non-citizens can vote illegally without any skin in the game. Sure. That can't have bad consequences.
Yah. See Constitutional Rights Foundation

"BRIA 8 1 b Who Voted in Early America?


"Becoming a freeholder was not difficult for a man in colonial America since land was plentiful and cheap. Thus up to 75 percent of the adult males in most colonies qualified as voters. But this voting group fell far short of a majority of the people then living in the English colonies. After eliminating everyone under the age of 21, all slaves and women, most Jews and Catholics, plus those men too poor to be freeholders, the colonial electorate consisted of perhaps only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population.

"The act of voting in colonial times was quite different from today. In many places, election days were social occasions accompanied by much eating and drinking. When it came time to vote, those qualified would simply gather together and signify their choices by voice or by standing up. As time went on, this form of public voting was gradually abandoned in favor of secret paper ballots. For a while, however, some colonies required published lists showing how each voter cast his ballot.

"Voting fraud and abuses were common in the colonies. Sometimes large landowners would grant temporary freeholds to landless men who then handed the deeds back after voting. Individuals were paid to vote a certain way or paid not to vote at all. Corrupt voting officials would allow unqualified persons to vote while denying legitimate voters the right to cast their ballots. Intimidation and threats, even violence, were used to persuade people how to vote. Ballots were faked, purposely miscounted, "lost," and destroyed.

"After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont's constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So the percentage of voters in colonial British N. America (what became the US) was very low, far below the theoretical percentage who can vote now in the US. There was also a religious component - in order to vote, you had to be male (almost universally), own land (or have an income - a minimum prescribed for either land or income), & be a member of the dominant religion, typically Protestant of some stripe.

Personally, I think if you're going to argue this line of logic, you would do better to go whole hog, like R. Heinlein in Starship Troopers: Only military veterans can vote, or hold elective office. The penalty for vote fraud would be capital punishment of course. (Presumably the state could allocate the remains in the manner as most beneficial to the state - voters getting preference, of course - organs, plasma, skin, bones, etc.)

Some current US senators already act as if this systems were in place, & they had qualified for the franchise (see news coverage; US senators suspected of profiteering, using insider (intelligence briefings) information to cash out their stock position just before the COVID-19 pandemic struck the US. What's ironic, of course, is that hardly any members of the US senate or house of representatives are US military veterans anymore.

The major problem with this arrangement (military service equals the franchise) is implementation. & the US has gone the other way, making the franchise nearly universal. What you need is a really good, targeted plague. See J. Pournelle's The Mercenary - for a possible solution to exactly the problem of clearing the table of useless mouths. It's not a solution for the weak of stomach though; & I'm not sure that there would be any serious interest in implementing it. But the idea is out there.

snark off/
 
Nov 2013
3,057
1,453
NM
Thank you for making my point. America was so much greater before the welfare rats could vote you off your land.
The US? It's a work in progress - it likely always will be, as our ideal goals are probably beyond human achievement. That's OK, though, it gives us a compass to navigate by.

The point of my posting above was that I doubt anyone is actually willing to go out & get rid of any people who aren't actively contributing to the commonweal of the US. There are pragmatic issues there: children, the sick, the aged, people mangled in service to the country (a category that includes a lot of veterans, sad to say - & too many of whom wind up homeless on the streets - for all the lip service that that demographic gets on national holidays), & so on. That isn't how the US has defined itself, no matter how bloody & violent our history up to 1898 (or whatever date you want to fix it @).
 
Dec 2014
28,691
16,329
Memphis, Tn.
If you don’t have skin in the game, no voting for you.
America went from a time when only landowners were allowed to vote because they had skin in the game to a time when non-citizens can vote illegally without any skin in the game. Sure. That can't have bad consequences.
Thank you for sharing your bigoted and ignorant personal opinion with us all.
Now, you have a good day...
 
  • Like
Reactions: skews13
Feb 2020
483
280
Kalifornia
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

What this means simply is that people who rely on freebies from a big government will always vote to keep a big government.

Allowing Food Stamp recipients to vote for more Food Stamps is just plain stupid.

Also, allowing non-property owners to vote for Property Tax hikes on property owners is equally stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FreeToChoose