DGDevin wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , Swingman
wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original
concept of only property owners being able to vote ... but damn
would that **** off the politicians and lobbyist.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would
disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the
right to vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being
a net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government
handouts.

So if through no fault of yours you can no longer work (say due to
illness) and you receive public assistance, you would no longer be
allowed to vote? That strikes me as pointlessly unfair.

How about the right to vote being contingent on passing a modest
current affairs test? If you can't provide one-paragraph outlines of
four out of seven major municipal issues and outline the positions of
the candidates for mayor and city council then you can't vote


Hell, lots of the candidates couldn't do that.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico