2007-02-01 14:53:43 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes.
Originally, only land-owners were allowed to vote. This lead to a society where the bosses had all the political power. Distinctions of usefulness need not be made this way; One citizen, one vote, and that's the way it should be.
Otherwise, the government is only accountable to those who profit from the current state of affairs. It needs to be accountable to all its citizens, even if some are perceived as less useful, or more of a burden, than others.
2007-02-01 14:57:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Of course. There are some very intelligent and wise people who utilize public assistance at times when it is needed. I know of some exceptional single mothers who are going to college while trying to raise their children and need the public assistance to help them through it.
I also agree that those on public assistance should have to be drug tested. Not randomly either, it should be a stipulation to recieving any sort of public assistance.
Actually, the question that should be asked is : Should stupid people be allowed to vote?!!!!
2007-02-01 23:00:21 · answer #2 · answered by Brandie 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure they do. It doesn't matter that if they are in any sort of government assistance or unemployed. They are citizens of this country. Every citizen who is in the required age to vote and registered can cast their votes.
2007-02-02 11:42:54 · answer #3 · answered by Vaas 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I see no reason why being on social assistance would negate the right to vote.
2007-02-01 22:58:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
There are some events that cause a citizen to lose the right to vote but lack of money is not one of them.
2007-02-01 22:56:53 · answer #5 · answered by Thomas K 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I dont even see why anyone should vote, will it really make a difference in how your life will be. A bum isnt going to become the ceo of a bank if john kerry would of won instead of bush. Nothing is going to change enough to make me want to vote. A dictator could make severe changes
2007-02-01 23:22:35 · answer #6 · answered by mason h 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why shouldn't they? If they are American citizens, over 18, they meet all the requirements. Denying them the right would be unconstitutional. So are you saying that the constitution should always be followed, except in this case?
2007-02-01 22:59:35 · answer #7 · answered by greencoke 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
all citizens have the right to vote, no matter their social status
2007-02-02 06:49:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
And why not??? Are they (we) any less than you or I or them?
As a legal North American citizen, you have a duty to vote! It is not a right! It is your duty!
If you give this up, you have no right to complain about 'anything'!!!
The Ol' Sasquatch Ã
2007-02-01 23:06:43 · answer #9 · answered by Ol' Sasquatch 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes they should have the right to vote, but I propose that those on government assistance be drug tested randomly to make sure that money is going to help them, not help them get high
2007-02-01 22:55:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋