Should renters be denied the vote?

heathcote123

It seems the Tea Party movement in America think so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37143350/tea-party-dont-let-renters-vote/?!!!!!mwuser

"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."

Is this a good idea or bad? It does seem the average homeowner is a bit more involved with the community than the renter, and hence should have more of a say at local level as to what happens with taxpayers money, but I'm not really sure denying renters the vote altogether is fair. Maybe they should be allowed in for national elections but not local ones?

I think it might be fairer to restrict voting based on tax contributions - anyone with a net positive contribution over the last 4 years should be allowed to vote at a GE, anyone else should not, because they'll only vote themselves more of other peoples money, which is obviously not fair. We already do this with children, so it's not a new idea.

Graham_Devon

Dragging policies from the tea party?

Great idea.

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Dragging policies from the tea party?

Great idea.

Maybe LL's should get the extra votes on behalf of their tenants then? I think LL's are more likely to vote, and they do want to keep voter participation up.

Wookster

What a stupid idea.

Our politicians are smarter. Not by much, but they are smarter.

madnessofBruno

So HMForces who rent MQ or from the private sector and defend this country of ours, would not be entitled to vote.

matbe

madnessofBruno wrote: »

So HMForces who rent MQ or from the private sector and defend this country of ours, would not be entitled to vote.

Special dispensation obviously.

chewmylegoff

surprised they didn't just say "only white, ultra right wing christians should be allowed to vote" or something along those lines, it would be just as transparent as this ludicrous policy.

Voyager2002

Since voting helps determine tax rates and how tax-payers' money is spent, maybe people should get more or fewer votes depending on how much tax they pay.

However, excluding people who don't pay tax doesn't make much sense: many of use depend on Government for our employment; are unemployed thanks to the present Government's austerity policy; and certainly ought to be able to express our opinions through the ballot box. Not to mention the pensioners who gave selflessly throughout their lives but now live on such tiny amounts that they are not eligible for income tax.

An alternative: if the reason for restricting the franchise is so that better decisions are made about who runs the country, then why not say that only people with an earned PhD should be allowed to vote? Or at least do what they do in Finland, and make it impossible to be an MP unless you have a PhD.

reweird

I'm surprised this is even questioned. Of course if you have no stake in society then your influence should be less over those of us who do.

Generali

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, I believe in One Man One Vote as long as I am the one man with the vote.

angrypirate

If only land owners got the vote then the majority of people under the age of 25 would not get a say in how this country is run and they are ultimately the people who will live with the decisions of todays government the longest. In my opinion, everyone who is a net contributor should get a vote.