QuoteQuote Historically in the US it was expanded from the set of people who were property owners to a much wider set.Yes - just as well because under the old system the US of A would have stagnated as would have the rest of world. In your world, Donald Trump would probably have more of a vote than Warren Buffet simply because he has more property. Quote You are not able to understand it because the only thing you are capable of is repeating what others told you, you don't have your homespun philosophies, just someone elses.sadly your philosophy is so simplistic that even my cat understands it.I believe that your cat would understand. You apparently don't. Otherwise you would argue with what i suggested -- voting only by taxpayers. Instead of arguing against the property test, that i mentioned as an example of historical criteria in the US.

Quote Otherwise you would argue with what i suggested -- voting only by taxpayers. I wasn't sure that you were being serious about this. What would you suggest to people that don't pay tax like mothers or fathers that stay at home to look after their family ? That they are disenfranchised ? How would your "tax vote" work ? Would people who find themselves unemployed become disenfranchised ? How about retirees whose income is below taxable levels ?Anyway, "it was government by the people, for the people". I don't see any reference to "tax" or property.

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelAnyway, "it was government by the people, for the people". I don't see any reference to "tax" or property.It is government by the Senate. Where the number in the House of Representatives is larger. And the number of electors in the Electoral College is larger still. And the number of voters is even larger still, but not encompassing every being that breathes. There are many wisely refined layers of delegation and counterbalance.And the voting is delegated to those wise and deliberative enough to vote. You could call them the Constitutionally appointed representatives of the larger masses. So it is a representative government.

When you think about it, women don't even want to vote. Nine members of the supreme court can ignore the law like dictators. And then women will go along with whatever those nine members decide, as long as the person explaining it to them has a full head of hair.

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerWhen you think about it, women don't even want to vote. Nine members of the supreme court can ignore the law like dictators. And then women will go along with whatever those nine members decide, as long as the person explaining it to them has a full head of hair.they all vote with their feet when they see you coming.

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelthey all vote with their feet when they see you coming.Ain't it sweet? I kinda prefer seeing them from that direction. With their little feet going up and down.

If women wanted to be represented by women, they would vote for them. And they don't. They vote for men like Bill Clinton. Who say drop those papers, honey! Hop on over here, and let me stick a cigar in ya!

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerIf women wanted to be represented by women, they would vote for them. And they don't. They vote for men like Bill Clinton. Who say drop those papers, honey! Hop on over here, and let me stick a cigar in ya!well I don't recall seeing a woman running for president against Clinton except for Bush I.

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuote Otherwise you would argue with what i suggested -- voting only by taxpayers. I wasn't sure that you were being serious about this. What would you suggest to people that don't pay tax like mothers or fathers that stay at home to look after their family ? That they are disenfranchised ? How would your "tax vote" work ? Would people who find themselves unemployed become disenfranchised ? How about retirees whose income is below taxable levels ?In a system where you would only get a vote if you paid taxes I would try my damndest not to vote!!!!!!!!!!!You can'y have a system which disenfranchises any member of the population - it becomes too easy for the "elite" voting part of society to only pass decisions that the rest of the populace does not agree with.

If you are paying taxes you are not equal to one who does not pay them. It similar as you and other are at a store with money and without them. Ether one can talk be right or not but only one with can buy something for himself because of money (legally or illegally). Of course in USSR it was about 100% of population were voted but it primarily made sense vs others countries were say voted about 50-70%. Vote is something that actually worst to have but it also could destroy everything developed earlier as negative or positive. Reaching vote right in a society does not change too much for this society.

QuoteIn a system where you would only get a vote if you paid taxes I would try my damndest not to vote!!!!!!!!!!!You can'y have a system which disenfranchises any member of the population - it becomes too easy for the "elite" voting part of society to only pass decisions that the rest of the populace does not agree with.You first sentence says that you would try not to vote and the following says that your not voting would result in your loss of rights, interests, or some other unspoken harm to you. Unless you want to harm yourself, you are disproving yourself. A voting right like i suggest creates maybe a small, but a certain incentive to have some income and pay some taxes.In terns of disenfranchisement etc. Current system is a discriminatory system -- only citizens vote, and only older than 18. I've known a great deal of people who are permanent residents and i was one myself, but i struggle to come up with some serious perks i was robbed of in my life as a permanent resident compared to when i achieved my current enthroned status of a citizen. I also don't detect children exploited by the voting elite here . Maybe you can correct my observations as i must be missing something big. Maybe dave will explain how the life of his smart cat would be better if she were not disenfranchised.

Quote Maybe dave will explain how the life of his smart cat would be better if she were not disenfranchised. she ain't so smart, she is just a cat - point is she doesn't have to be to comprehend your homespun philosophy.

Cop Goes Viral for Sneakers at Luigi Mangione Perp Walk

Tell me Western World is f*cked up without telling me Western World is f*cked up