I do know that it was changed, but what was the exact reasoning behind it?
Was it because there was to much fighting, or because there was a poll that showed there were more males without property then with, ect.
(This was in the past, so don't say I am against women voters or something stupid like that! Okay?)
2006-12-03 06:48:06 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Well, I believe that if this change really occurred as you say it did, then it must have happened by a vote of some kind...
So the question is: why would a group of land-owners suddenly decide to let non-land-owners have a vote?
Probably because they wanted to take more land and people who didn't already own land would be easily manipulated into their favor and pose very little threat in the long run.
After all, no homeless person has ever become a mayor or governor, have they?
Ask yourself this question, is it ethical to deny prisoners the right to vote? Or ex-cons who have served their time?
I'm sure there are many people who feel that they are imprisoned unjustly or have learned a thing or two about the society they live in and would like to have their say...
2006-12-03 18:50:16 · answer #1 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because voting was intended to be open to the citizens of the country, and owning property should not be a requirement of being a citizen.
Generally it was thought that by eliminating the non-property owners that you keep the "riff-raff" out, and wouldn't corrupt the voting system, but as places became more urbanized there was more rental and leasing, and so you could be an upstanding citizen without necessarily "owning" property.
2006-12-03 06:57:11 · answer #2 · answered by T J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Check this out: in Bolivia, there are 50,000 families who own anll the land for millions of people. Most people are dirt poor, and many do not have the foggiest idea how to farm, let alone own tools.
Somehow, a populist president was elected, becaused he promised to give the land BACK.
The members of government all either owned land or didn't want to be killed or voted out by the landowners, so they would never vote in public to let this happen.
A week or so ago, 300,000 Bolivian poor started to march to the capital for their land.
At an 11 pm meeting, the president and a whole lot of the members of the assembly clandestinely got together, and actually voted to give it all back.
Do you think it had somethign to do with the fear of the physical revolt of the poor, all marching, organized, ready to demand their rights? Ready to risk everything (hey, what idd they really have?) to force the issue?
I'd be willing to bet anything, this was what was happening in America.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
What will happen in America when all of us are marginalized by the rich again?
What's going to happen when most of us go bankrupt, and have to rent apartments because we cannot get credit let alone money for our own homes?
Have you heard about Long Island lately?
It's happening all over again.
And then what will we do, when we have nothing?
Threaten physical marches, and violence.
And the landlords will have to let us rent to purchase, or something.
2006-12-03 06:55:02 · answer #3 · answered by starryeyed 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it was a state by state basis. As time went on more and more weathy men were moving out of the country side and into town. Not all of them owned property any more but still of course wanted to vote.
Money talks.
2006-12-03 06:51:33 · answer #4 · answered by John16 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's a protracted drawn out question. i'm merely going to respond to the placement. definite. a minimum of on the racist section. Liberals have faith that minorities at the instant can not make in the international with out their help. that's what affirmative action is all approximately. "you at the instant are not reliable sufficient. So we are going to grant you with a leg up." they could have reliable intentions, however the foundation is organic racism, the theory that somebody is inferior based merely on their race.
2016-12-29 20:21:05 · answer #5 · answered by chatterton 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the first answer is on the right track, , , i dont think, , , i know, , , its on a state to state basis, , , if wisconsin wants illegals to vote, they can make it so.
and who owns property anyway? well, i do, but a huge number of people dont, , , and not everybody who owns property votes, , , example, me.
i dunno, , , it would be easier to count the votes, , , there would be far fewer.
and i wouldnt think they would need a poll to see who owned property, , , thats all documented.
hahahaha, , , got to edit, , , that (second one i believe) is good.
hes on the right track. that will give me opportunity to post my link below.
a long post, but the information is in the top part of it.
2006-12-03 06:56:31 · answer #6 · answered by mejicojohn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Voting is merely an illusion, because presidents are elected by THIS secret and evil group that's been in control of everything for far too long!...
http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm
2006-12-04 01:41:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was to gain a bigger voting group as the country grew.
2006-12-03 09:07:24 · answer #8 · answered by cynical 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There were more males who didn't own property, than those who did.
2006-12-03 06:58:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
15th Amendment.
2006-12-03 06:55:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋