Do you believe that one man or woman one vote is the best way?

Question

or should we change our system to say that you must have a certain amount of wealth or other evidence of success and committment to the status quo to vote? After all, was this not really the way the founding fathers designed it at first?

Answer 1

HI ,I think congress should put up a change to the Electoral College system of voting for the President of U.S. A. It should be done by popular vote of the people.Also there should be some form of photo registration when voting at poles,to make sure that is person voting.I rest my case.

Answer 2

So, you're saying that you want to allow only the rich to vote? And, who would determine if you had enough evidence of success and committment to the status quo?

I say, one person, one vote. The Electoral system could use some work, though. Who ever gets the majority of actual votes (not electoral votes) should win.


Edit

Own some land to vote???? That is ridiculous. Maybe back in the day when the gov't gave out free land and you farmed it or something. Not with today's prices. I have served my country for nearly 12 years now and I still don't own an inch of land. I still have to rent. But, I guess I shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That is as asanine as saying that you cannot vote unless you own a gun.

Answer 3

Yes, one voter, one vote is the way of our country and it is a good one. However, for the presidential election, the individual voter never had the right to vote directly for the president. The State Senators retained that right from the onset. After all, the Senators are supposed to represent the interests of each state in Washington DC. (The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people of each state.) The Senators are then supposed to elect a president that is to stand as the leader of the USA as the single voice to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, there is a movement in the USA to even do away with the electoral college, which would put further remove the USA from a constitutional republic to a democracy. (which is not a good thing). Here's why. In a constitutional republic (which is what our founding father envisioned for our country), we have laws for equality for ALL. In a democracy, majority rules. Consider two wolves and a goat sitting down for dinner together. In a democracy, what (or who) do you think will be on the dinner plate?

Answer 4

At this point I believe we need a loyalty oath for a person to be able to vote! Except any active duty or honorably discharged military personnel could vote unless convicted of violating the loyalty oath they took when they were sworn in - I guess that would have excluded William J. Clinton and John F. Kerry, huh?!

Plus, we need to require the drive-by media to hold a 24-hour election news black-out on Election Day!

Note that Richard Daley and his crowd couldn't register enough dead Dems to steal the 2004 election like they tried to do in 2000! So I'll have to agree with "john himself". I guess the poor Libs/Commie/Socialists *do* need some sort of Affirmative Action program!

Answer 5

I don't think it is unreasonable to set some kind of requirement. If I remember properly, voting was restricted to those with land. The rationale was that if you didn't own a literal piece of the county, you didn't hold any stock in the country's success. I think there is a measure of truth to that.

Answer 6

Well, maybe if the leftists got two or three votes they could win elections. Kind of like an affirmative action program for them. They like those.

Answer 7

i think the best way is to put both parties in a room naked with each one having a stick.. the winner wins the election

Answer 8

It's the worst possibly way to run a country...

...except for all the others, of course.

Answer 9

No I think it would be better to allow every "global citizen" in the world to vote in American politics and allow Democrats the right to count all these legal votes.