I mean, seriously, should a PhD in Political Science or an Economist not be given more voting rights than some moron from Arkansas(or wherever) who gets his ideology from Air America or Savage Nation?
I mean, with few exceptions, people who are wealthier, more educated and of a higher social class got that way through hard work and intelligence.\
It just makes sense to have THEIR votes count for more than those of the "Great Unwashed"
Screw one person, one vote, look where it got you: trillions of dollars in debt and 3000 dead kids in some shithole 5000 miles away for some Texas hick's delusions of Empire.
Obviously there are too many idiots with their hands on the voting poll..
I
2006-11-06 08:23:42 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
You do understand that we are an DEMOCRACY? Everyone gets an equal vote. That's the point. And furthermore, people who were born wealthy or middle class have a much better chance of getting into college and getting wealthy. People who were born poor, no matter how hard working and intelligent they are, often never have a chance. And that is the flaw in your argument!!!
You are endorsing a class based system. One of the fundamental principles of this country is that every one is equal in the eyes of the law. Everyone gets an equal vote no matter if he or she has 3 million dollars or 3 cents. No matter if he or she has a Ph.D or a job as a garbage collector.
If you don't like it, you're welcome to find yourself a class based society outside of the US.
OH, I GET IT. You are a dishonest neocon attempting to further the stereotype of limousine liberals, by posting this rediculous anti-american post. Shame on you. You will find that liberals as a whole get onto this thread and give a massive thumbs down to the suggestion that the wealthy deserve more. That is what we are fighting!
Though I guess you probably have multiple nics, and you will have them come on and agree with you to further your pitiful attempt to bash and stereotype liberal attitudes and beliefs.
2006-11-06 08:33:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Unfortunately, I know a lot of idiots with money.
This would be a step back to what used to occur over a hundred years ago. Then you had to have property or a certain amount of money to be allowed to vote. This is because the extension of the franchise has been a gradual extension of power, from the king to the nobles, to the other landowners, to the factory owners, to the artisans, to the employed, to all men, to women, to the 18 year olds.
How do you decide who will get these bonus votes? Will it be based on education or annual income? Also consider what the racial implications will be. Are WASPs likely to be advantaged by this system? Will minorities who are disadvantaged by the current system find it harder to achieve change because they have even less political power?
Also, I think you will find that the current situation achieves what you want by default. There is a correlation between political participation (voting) and income, education etc (all the indicators of being upper middle class).
A final thought. That Texas hick would get an extra vote under any definition of upper middle class - now that is scary.
2006-11-06 08:44:10 · answer #2 · answered by Jim T 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is the beauty of America-everyone over 18 can have a say in their gov't. Why because the upper class will only elect officials that will help them, leaving the morons as you call them out in the cold. Everyone opinions counts and just because you have a PhD doesn't make you smarter than a housewife in Ohio. Democracy isn't it a great thing.
2006-11-06 08:29:14 · answer #3 · answered by Annie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And this type of thinking is exactly why there should only be one vote for one person. Smarter, more educated people would want to take over and rule the country....OH, WAIT! That is already true! Wealthier people do have more than one vote already because they are able to buy politicians and direct legislation!
2006-11-06 08:28:05 · answer #4 · answered by She-ra 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
So lets get this straight, the upper class who already gets health care, education, tax cuts, nice neighborhoods, should have their vote matter more. I don't think there's any other better way to further divide the have and have nots in this country. Ridiculous idea, I'm sorry.
2006-11-06 08:32:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The framers of the Constitution thought they should be the only ones allowed to vote. Rich people now a days, however, can be just as evil and self intrested as poor people. It wouldnt work today, even though the framers thought it would.
2006-11-06 08:28:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. One citizen, one vote. Anything other than that cannot be supported logically. If we start deciding one group of people is better than another, then we start failing as a society and gradually work our way to dictatorship.
2006-11-06 08:32:16 · answer #7 · answered by Tim 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's the biggest pile of stinking dog turds I ever heard of. Allow me to educate your ignorant self , rule by the elite is called an oligarchy and unconstitutional in this country.
2006-11-06 08:33:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure if your really serious b/c your idea is so ridiculous?!?!? F&^& it - lets just do away with voting all together and hand the government over to the Bush family....who needs democracy anyway?
2006-11-06 08:31:59 · answer #9 · answered by autumn 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
And who made you the arbiter of political astuteness? You seem to be the poster child for the "Great Unwashed."
Don't mess with Texas!
2006-11-06 08:28:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋