Featured Early Voting

One man one vote. Mammon is an unjust god. The rich do not make good rulers.

 

You're not making any sense. Allowing someone the same opportunity as anyone else makes them a ruler? You're not thinking it through. It is one man one vote. One vote in each area that affects him. He's not getting multiple voices. He's getting his voice wherever it affects him.

Again, "No taxation without representation".

 

You may be rich but you are not special. You have representation in one place but you are seeking representation in several places because you own a lot of property. The American republic was based upon equality before the law and one man one vote. You are saying that wealth gives one a right to an inequality that a poorer person is not entitled to. The rich have other powers that make them more than equal. Your formula for voting would quickly lead to rule by the rich and make a poor person's vote immaterial. The poor would be disfranchised.

One man one vote is the basis for a republic.

 

This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European's way of life. When the "left" is carrying the torch for two "Neo-Con" wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD's, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.

What's wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.

Read More At: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html

 

One man one vote. Exactly. And you want to take that one vote away from a man by not allowing him to vote where he owns property. He is not getting more than one vote by voting in multiple areas. That is not special treatment. Not giving him the vote is penalizing him for being rich.

 

What you suggest is what the rich are already doing. The American republic gave every man one vote. What you want is more than one vote. You want to be the boss wherever you own ground. I would say to the rich that if you don't like your treatment in Leland, Michigan, sell your house and go home.

Votes are not attached to property and land deeds. Votes are attached to human beings and each human being gets to vote once.

Now I realize that the USA is a dying country and that the world craves darkness and I am saying that the rich are trying to extinguish the flame of liberty as much as anyone else.

 

I feel like I might be misunderstood. By voting in different areas, I mean only one vote per election. For instance, if I have houses in two towns in the same state, I would only get one vote for state elections, but one vote for mayor of each of the cities I had property in.

If I have property in two states, I would get one vote in those states for state government.

So, I would only get one vote for national elections, no matter how many properties I had.

It's not special treatment. It's only common sense.

 

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

Actually all he is suggesting is that he get one vote in the areas he pays taxes in. He is not looking for more than one vote anywhere.

 

Well let's say that I spend the night in a hotel in New York City. And I pay a lot of taxes on the hotel bill. By extension of your logic, I should be able to vote in New York City (not that I would be interested).

There is a great deal of this voting in two places going on already. Probably several million people with winter homes and summer homes. You have to feel sorry for them, don't you? Next they will be saying that God intended for them to be rich and that they are a higher form of evolution.

This voting in two places is currently illegal.

One man one vote--the basis of a republic--means that one man votes once.

 

A republic is a representative form of government. For example, Al Franken represents the people of Minnesota--ha!ha!

There is some professor at the Indiana University law school here in Indianapolis who says that Senators should not have been directly elected but appointed by the state legislatures as they were intended to represent the states in Congress, so that subject is very complicated. In short, your congressman is your intended representative. I happen to be represented by Todd Rokita, a former Indiana Secretary of State who worked tirelessly against Democrat voter fraud in the Calumet area of Indiana (northwestern corner).

As for the Senate, it is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

When Americans get rich, they then lust for power and most of our elected officials are rich. If I ever got rich, I would like to relax and have fun but human nature is to want to rule with the accumulation of wealth. As Indiana humorist Kin Hubbard once said, money talks and that's the reason so many of us get drowned out of the conversation.

 

This is a well and good....in theory. How do you prevent this hypothetical dual resident from voting twice in the national elections? What system would you put in place to prevent voter fraud?

 

I am already an advocate of voter ID laws. A bar coded ID with an encrypted social security number on it would do the trick. Scan your ID, and the computer brings up the votes you are allowed, and you choose. If your code is scanned again, authorities are alerted.

 

Which authorities might that be?

 

I do not think you guys who advocate Property-tax-only voting rights (that's what this amounts to) have thought this through very well.
You have unintentionally made the payment of Property taxes the sole arbitter of voting powers. This would be nighmarish.

1.) By the same logic, someone who owns more than ONE property (and pays separate tax bills) in the district should have more than one vote in that district.

2.) How does your $400 dollars a year as a non-resident on your 1/4 acre compare to my $2,000 a year taxes as a resident on my 10 acres?

3.) Are you leasing your property?
If so, then your tenant is shouldering the burden of your property taxation, not you.

4.) If you own a one-acre plot in a residentially zoned area, is that worth one vote?

then:

What happens when you convince the zoning board to allow you to split it into four individual 1/4 acre plots? You are now paying 4 separate tax bills (with probably a higher total should you not now get 4 votes instead of one?

5.) Businesses own property and pay taxes upon them:
If I own a home and as a restaurauteur also own property (upon which, again I am paying property taxes) should I not get two votes?

6.) How do you get one vote in a district for one small plot in the ghetto if I own 100 acres of prime Real Estate and pay 50 x's what you do in property taxes? Shouldn't my voting powers not be scaled to the amount I pay?
I should think so.........remember..........
No taxation without representation right?

7.) Shouldn't resident property owners' votes who will pay
sales taxes, fuel taxes, garbage pick-up fees, State liscencing fees, Vehicle registration fees count for more voting powers than your non-resident voting powers?

8.) If I own 20 rental homes in one district (with 20 separate tax bills) shouldn't I get 20 votes?..........or again.....should my tenants who shoulder the burden of my property taxes (and mortgage) receive those votes?

9.) Should homeowners get a vote in the local election for residency and one vote for paying property taxes whilst residents who rent an apartment receive only one vote for residency?

10.) If your Property taxes are in arrears should your local voting rights not be rescinded until such time as they are paid?

This CAN'T work folks and would be epically nightmarish in creating equality of representation and in implementation it would be impossible to arbitrate. It would be giving up a dollar to try to get another dime. And it would create 100 x's as much individual inequality before the law as it might solve.
"No taxation without Representation"
Is not a Universal all-consuming First Principle of Politics:
It was a specific phrase coined at a particular time for a particular set of circumstances....
It was the 18th Century equivalent of a bumper sticker:

"Gun control is the ability to hit your target"
"Keep your laws off of my body"
"If 10% is good enough for God why isn't it good enough for the Government"

When we are demanding representatives in the House of Commons because of paying the Stamp Act, it will be relevant to our circumstances again.

I appreciate the fundamental sentiment that your concern is derived from Sapper and share the basic sentiment:
Namely, that those who work and those who pay the taxes are who should have the right to vote:
However, it is unworkable in practice here.

 

Not trying to be snarky, but your entire post is invalid; all your points are based off the faulty premise of your first point, which we've already discussed and is in no way an extension of my logic. If you read my posts again, hopefully you'll see this.

I never said anything to the effect of "if you pay one full property tax you get a vote". I said "if you pay taxes". In fact, I specifically said only one vote per election. You neglected to read that part, I suppose.