For example, welfare. Those on welfare get to vote, and those who pay taxes are allowed to vote. Or abortion. Those who can get pregnant can vote, but those who cannot, don't get to. What do you think? (those who cannot get pregnant would be men, and the elderly) Keep it constructive, if possible...;) It's just an experiment.
2006-09-12 06:58:06 · 15 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
easy, spirit, I know it's sensitive, but don't insinuate anything about me. Just a question
2006-09-12 07:02:44 · update #1
feisty, it is an option for the man to use birth control, or have sex ONLY with women who are against abortion. Two have sex, ONE gets pregnant. Men have a say in birth control...
2006-09-12 07:11:55 · update #2
oh yeah, men can give up rights to their children, if they don't want them
2006-09-12 07:12:47 · update #3
yes, leogirl, it DOES mean that! I thought you guys didn't want the government to fund education, anyways?
2006-09-12 07:14:35 · update #4
Interesting! but there are limits. Polygamy? I'm not married to more than one person. Child abuse? I'm not a child, or an abuser. Abortion? I've been born already!
Everyone has a say in how how they want society to be run.
But if fewer than 50% of people pay taxes, that could be a BIG problem. Voters would have no reason not to mandate huge tax increases.
But that's an argument for having everyone pay a similar rate, not for limiting voting.
2006-09-12 07:07:53 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On abortion I disagree, yes true men cannot get pregnant, but neither can woman without the men. It is too easy for a woman to say I don't want this baby and get an abortion. When is that an option for a man? A man cannot simply say I don't want the baby, he then is mandated to pay for it. On abortion, the men as well as woman should be able to vote on that topic. Welfare should be voted by anyone who pays taxes, because the taxes are the ones that pay for welfare. Those on welfare can have a say too, but seriously, some people shouldn't not be on welfare. It is an interesting Idea, but cannot hold true to itself. As of now, the elected officials make and pass the laws, rules and regulations as they see fit. How would you be able to determine what the issues are that should be voted on, issues that people feel they are affected by? How many people would have to stand up and say, I wanna vote on this issue for it to go to a voting booth? If a person is concerned about public security but not enough are, then she is left out because the issue won't go to the people right. I would like to know more on your Idea if you could tell me.
2006-09-12 14:08:02 · answer #2 · answered by Fiesty Redhead 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO!!! Part of living in a free country is having a voice in every matter, if it is anything concerning the country, or the state that you live in you should have a right to vote, if it is going to affect you directly or not. Having the power and the right to decide on an important issue is one of the best freedoms in america. Everyone should vote on everything.
2006-09-12 14:03:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that naturally happens in the process anyway. If I am not concerned about an issue that is on the ballot, I won't cast a vote for or against. I think everyone should have an opportunity to vote about these issues whether they are directly affected or not.
2006-09-12 14:08:23 · answer #4 · answered by Brzo Biciklo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting. But it misses one crucial aspect.
The voters are not (under the current system) enacting the laws. They are genreally only giving an advisory opinion. So, since politicians are making the laws based on their overall constitutents, it would be difficult to consider this voting model truly representative.
Then there is the difficulty of defining what "concerns" someome. I do counseling for people, including family planning. So, does birth control and abortion "concern" me, since it affects my career?
But in generally, I really like the concept. Just find a way to make it work.
2006-09-12 14:02:41 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
This is America, we are all equal in the eyes of the law. Everything effects us all. Welfare recipients affect my paycheck, so hell yeah, I want in on that. If we want to use your logic, does that mean since I don't have kids, I no longer have to fund education? Nice try, but it didn't take much thought to see the problems with this idea.
2006-09-12 14:08:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well you just get prego with a mans sperm then come talk to us if you can without that
We will call you Mary then>
It takes two
You only have to vote for what you want.
I usually say voting is all that matters in your case please do not vote or breed for that matter.
2006-09-12 14:03:31 · answer #7 · answered by buzzy360comecme 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A regulation like that would create a lot more jobs for those who police who should be allowed to vote for any particular measure.
2006-09-12 14:02:04 · answer #8 · answered by taurus 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well.. some things may not pertain to us today.. but will later in life. Our votes matter regadless of who they directly pertain to. Think economics, culture, not all votes are based on matter of opinion.
2006-09-12 14:02:11 · answer #9 · answered by Serious Mandy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.Keep in mind that there are people still arguing about Algores hanging chad tantrum.No one would be able to police such a practice.
2006-09-12 14:07:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋