like you must show you either work, make a certain minimum household income of say $40,000, or have savings of over $100,000 or otherwise are a significant contributor to society?
This is a 2 part question. Part 2 to this question is who is your favorite candidate for the presidential election.
To get best answer you must clearly answer both parts decisively.
2007-10-22 08:45:43 · 22 answers · asked by ez f 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you start putting limits on who can vote based on what they own, or how much they have in their savings acct., you're an elitist.
2007-10-22 08:48:31 · answer #1 · answered by katydid 7 · 9⤊ 0⤋
When you turn 18, you should have every right to vote. The person being elected is serving ALL those in district, community, country, county, school. If all are to be represented, then all those should vote. Only bad could come from your idea. All would not be justly represented. I do believe the voting age should be moved up a few years. I think a lot of young people cast a vote on popularity.
My favorite candidate is John Edwards. I may not agree with everything he does (ie Gay Marriage) but he's upfront with that. I'll see how the race goes, if not Edwards then Obama. I don't have any hate against Clinton but the other 2 are my favs.
2007-10-22 08:57:25 · answer #2 · answered by zzyzx08 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think only Americans should vote and their income should have nothing to do with voting. An elected official is supposed to represent the voters of his district and I doubt any elected official lives in a district described by you. Having money or savings does not have anything to do with being allowed to vote. Ridiculous. Haven't made my decision yet, but won't be voting for Hilary.
2007-10-22 08:53:48 · answer #3 · answered by TomB 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why do people keep asking questions like this?
Why would anyone want to enforce the disenfranchisement of poor people? It just doesn't make any sense.
(Don't you think they're smart enough to vote?)
We have a name for this: oligarchy. (The US is a democracy. Everyone gets a vote.)
By the way, all you have to do to get $100,000 in assets is to get a $110,000 loan and buy a piece of property. Maybe you should include a "solvency" clause. Your "net worth" should be a certain amount, not your assets.
2007-10-22 08:49:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Part 1: Absolutely not. All members of society should have an equal say in who represents them. Also, I do not think inherited assets or salaries are any indicator of significant contribution to our society
Part 2: So far it is Obama, but that could change
2007-10-22 08:51:09 · answer #5 · answered by John V 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
1. Are you crazy? So you are saying that only people with money should be able to vote. Guess you can count out a majority of Americans.
2. I will vote for the candidate of my choice.
2007-10-22 08:50:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
2 - Huckabee
1 - That is a terrible idea. People who don't work need representation also, they are part of the reality of our country. Although it may seem undesirable to you for people who don't work to vote, it may be undesirable in someone eles's eyes for you to vote. Who is to determine which groups of people are worthy of voting and which are not? No one. If you are a legal citizen of this country, you are allowed to vote. Except for criminals....which I'm not real sure if I agree with that.
2007-10-22 08:58:33 · answer #7 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would support proof of employment OR assets (ie: social security eligibility or investment capital) OR proof of disability.
If you're a) healthy, b) younger than retirement age, and c) of functional intelligence, you shouldn't necessarily get a vote if you aren't at least partially contributing to your own cost of living.
In the election I like... Ron Paul probably, although there will likely be a better Libertarian candidate before the general election is finalized.
2007-10-22 09:05:11 · answer #8 · answered by freedom first 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If by "assets" you mean "critical thinking skills" then yes. Which puts a big chunk of the conservatives in this country out o' luck.
I've heard that most successful drug dealers have incomes of at least $40k and savings even higher. Are they the kind of upstanding citizen you want to vote?
2007-10-22 08:53:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
no, i don't think there should be limits like that. last time they did that was after the civil war and it was to keep the freed slaves from voting.
the great thing about democracy should be that everyone has an equal say--the poor and the rich. that's in theory of course--in reality, money talks in democracy (corporations, lobbiests, etc.)
favorite candidate...is private.
2007-10-22 08:53:34 · answer #10 · answered by scoop 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. I understand the country started out that way and it turned out to be a mistake.
It puts people with property in control of people without, and that is not good.
I would prefer Edwards, but will vote for Hillary.
2007-10-22 08:49:23 · answer #11 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋