Posted on 12/07/2010 9:05:19 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Tonight on Hardball, Chris Matthews brought up a thorny issue: exactly who should have the right to vote? A small group of conservatives, including Tea Party Nation president Judson Philips, think the answer to that question should be property owners. And while MSNBC Correspondent and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan told Matthews that he doesnt wholeheartedly agree with that group, he does think that the idea of universal franchise is badly flawed.
When asked to comment on Philipss statementthat restricting the vote to property owners makes a lot of senseBuchanan replied that he understand[s] the principle behind it, but thinks our nation is far beyond adhering to such a standard; after all, these days, even the wealthiest members of society rent property. At the same time, though, Buchanan told Matthews he thought that homeowners do tend to be better citizens, since they have a more vested interest in the community. He also brought up the sad fact that most voters are incredibly ignorant about American government; in a recent Hardball poll, only 28 percent of respondents replied correctly when asked to name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Courteven though they only had five names to choose from.
Your requirements are land ownership, sufficient knowledge of world events and historywhere are we at? asked Matthews jovially in response. I thought you were anti-elitist. Even so, the host did agree that much of the electorate is woefully uninformed. For example: I think Sarah Palin might have a serious problem with some basic information about American history, he said. Hey, Hardball went almost six minutes without mentioning Sarah Palin! New record?
The video from MSNBC is below.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Judson Phillips is a bozo whose using the Tea Party to feather his nest.
If you don’t pay federal taxes, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote in a federal election.
Simple as that.
I'd be happy to draft the questions.
Winston Churchill said that the best case against democracy was a five minute conversation with the average voter.
For good government you need principled voters who will not vote for riches out of the treasury. That is NOT the Obama voter.
He’s not talking about tax payers, he’s talking about property owners, which excludes those who live in apartment dwellings.
The questions would be random from a of, say, 50 questions.
The questions would be random from a pool of, say, 50 questions.
Ditto. Net tax payers.
College professor, late 60s, Southern College, told our entire Political Science class no one should be allowed to vote unless they owned property and had read and understood “Atlas Shrugged”.
I have never forgotten that statement.
Southern College is not the school, just a small college in the south.
I think paying federal taxes is sufficient to be allowed to vote. Someone that pays taxes has a stake in what the politicians do.
Bottom line.... If you have a W2, or a 1099, you can register to vote in a federal election.
There should be a substantial civics exam involved to qualify.
I totally agree with that sentiment, but feel that paying into the federal coffers is practically ‘good enough’.
Ideally, I’d prefer voters to face a quick quiz at the polling place. If you can’t name your Congressional representative and at least one of your US Senators, you don’t get to vote.....
Or maybe the quiz can show up on the computer screen, and if you answer incorrectly, your vote isn’t counted. That would probably be the best way to go about such a thing.
Agreed. Net Taxpayers is a good start. There is no reason why someone with an IQ of 85 who derives most of his “living” from government programs should vote. Moreover, government employees are not net taxpayers and should not vote - the only exception being the military.
Only men who are married and have children and live with their children and the mother of the children—or, if the mother is deceased, lived with her until her death.
Would be awesome if some English skills/proficiency was required, eh?
I like that idea.
There is no such person as the “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”
There is, however, such a person as the “Chief Justice of the United States.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.