It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1 person 1 vote is stupid. Democracy was never supposed to be this way.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
back to the suffragette age where only landowners can vote being the way forward i presume




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You're going with that? Um, Hillary lost. How effective do you think that 1.5B was? The system is still quasi-functional.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Uh, that's not what democracy is, bud.

What you're talking about is a form of plutocracy with a hint of an oligarchy.

OP - you ever read a history book? Women used to not be able to vote, as well as blacks.

Let's revert back to a time where only wealthy folks are able to vote.

Lol. Dumbest thread I've read in some time.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
...wow dude...

If anything at all. You lazy money makers that bask off the sweat and blood of others should have absolutely no say in government.

The warriors who fight for that freedom you take for granted should have more sway of the system then some rich snob who has to pay someone to wipe their #.

I would rethink a little bit about your idea.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: allsee4eye

And, I think the U.S. had (long time ago) "rules" about WHO could vote and who could not.

A homeless pauper or derelict may not have been able to vote years ago.



Nor black people or women.

Yay! "The good old days" where wealthy landowners were the only ones REALLY meant by "We the People" and everyone else was unworthy of mention.

But that was all in between the lines right? Wink wink. Otherwise the "lesser thans" might not spill their blood against the English Overlords.

So good that Times have changed.






posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Side note - I'm curious if OP feels the same way about people like George Soros having increased voting power because he, too, is wealthy.




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Some people who are billionairs have inherited all they money. Please explain, why should these "uber mensch" (as you clearly see them) have special power when they in fact haven't contributed anything more to society than simply being born by the right parents? Also, if a person has two billion dollars in the bank, does he or she get to vote twice, while some poor loser with only one billion in the bank gets to vote only once? Is it gonna be one vote per billion, or how will this thing work, exactly?

Please elaborate on your theories. I could use a laugh.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Your threads are getting worse by the day.

I wish they would just ban you already.

You're obviously a troll.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I don't know.

We have large groups of people that think free speech should be banned.

We have people that think the confederate flag should be banned.

We have people that think firearms should be banned.

Voting?

Why would that right be any different?

Nothing is sacred anymore.

We're close to living in some socialistic-authoritarian wet dream.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't know how any of that relates to calling OP constant trolling trash.

But on topic, giving certain people more weight with votes would get us much closer to an authoritarian wet dream and we all know it.

Look at any country where a small group has more power, they're authoritarian.

And I'd argue the only prosperous countries are unweighted democracies.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The OP is picking controversial topics.

That is a fact.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

So basically you would hand over even more power to the rich and elite?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Only tall, good looking people should be able to vote.

Because chicks dig tall good looking voters.



No, they dig giant robots.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Junkheap

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Only tall, good looking people should be able to vote.

Because chicks dig tall good looking voters.



No, they dig giant robots.


Dang!

Giant robots don't vote!

(Ignore that, my robot overlords, for I worship at your robot feet))



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The OP is a troll and anyone entertaining his proposition is an idiot.

Demos-: Common people
-kratos: Strength

Democracy literally means strength of the common people. If we look at Athenian democracy, the earliest form of democracy, every citizen had an equal voter regardless of their societal role.

So yes, democracy was originally designed to mean one person=one vote.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The OP is a troll and anyone entertaining his proposition is an idiot.

Demos-: Common people
-kratos: Strength

Democracy literally means strength of the common people. If we look at Athenian democracy, the earliest form of democracy, every citizen had an equal voter regardless of their societal role.

So yes, democracy was originally designed to mean one person=one vote.


Sure does bring out the "Best" attitudes of many Members though.




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TommyD1966

Actually, the way the country was founded, property owners were the only ones who could vote. The reason being was that it was though they had skin in the game so to speak and would thus have more responsibility to vote wisely.

While I am not 100% sure how the system needs to be tailored, I do think we need to end the system of people who simply vote themselves into the pockets of others. That does go against the founding principles since one of the things that so cheesed off the original rebels was all the taxes and duties that got slapped on them without them having any real say in the matter.

It's getting to the point where we are approaching that line now.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TommyD1966

And Soros, the Clintons, the bankers, and all of the wealthy Hollywood elites that people claim they're against. It's like these people don't even think this crap through. They whine & moan that lobbyists, politicians, the MIC, bankers, "TPTB", and every other supposedly powerful shadow group have too much power. Then they propose rules that give them even more power as a "solution". lol



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye
Ummm...well, because it's a guaranteed right in the constitution?

Just maybe.

Of course, what you're arguing for is class privilege, but it doesn't matter, because we should all understand that only a handful of states legally bind their electors to vote with the majority of the people (for presidential elections, obviously), and it's really the electoral college that votes for the president.

The rest, though, is perfectly fine if a homeless druggy wants to vote. I certainly feel your pain--I can't stand when even hard-working people are ignorant as to the issues and candidates, but still vote anyhow. But it's a right, and the government can't force people to vote nor to be educated when they do, it can only make the opportunity available to all citizens.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Why should a homeless man on drugs on the streets have the same vote as a hard working billionaire who creates thousands of jobs and pays millions in taxes to contribute to schools, hospitals, science and technology research at universities and so on? It's not fair. In my opinion, a person's vote should be weighted by how much tax that person contributes. People who pay more taxes have more voting power. People who pay less taxes have less voting power. If a person pays 1 million in taxes a year, that person's vote is worth 1 million. If a person pays 0 in taxes in a year, that person's vote is worth 0. This way, voting would not be dominated by those who want handouts and bailouts. What do you think?


Suspect....... Real suspect, that's what I think.

Remember this little tidbit?


Say what you want about Russia. Russia is not corrupt.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join