2922
Comments (222)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
10
Q83FYpmVZM 10 points ago +10 / -0

I asked a question in the beginning of my statement.

I ended my statement with historical facts.

I never advocated for going back to only land owners, I'm asking what would be a good criteria.

4
Adhal 4 points ago +4 / -0

honestly all we need is a voter ID.

1
570dbp 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well when the republicans out do the democrats in ballot harvesting and cheating, they will beg for voter ID. The republicans cannot be nice guys who play by the book but finish last.

2
nokclier 2 points ago +2 / -0

Personally I would go for a small series of and/ors. I don't really think it's a question of "responsibility", more of a "Stake in the future". I would say if you tick one of these boxes, you are allowed to vote. Have biological, or adoptive children(legally dependents), own a business (said business would be your main form of income), own land (This land would be worth atleast 1/4 of the middle class tax bracket's income to represent a significant amount of money), or have served in active duty(you layed down your life, you deserve a vote). Ontop of this, I would only make it mandatory for federal positions of power that you tick two of these boxes(That ways even by the "Easiest" standard you would have to own land and have children). It would be so that the average person could have more say in local and state held positions, while the more "resposible" could vote nation-wide. One caveat would be that the standard for running for these position would not change. This would result in people running that cannot vote for themselves.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0