Saturday, July 23

Getting political

The Tea Party movement does not typically, if ever, endorse something in which I do. Usually, it is around the opposite of my personal preference, but I can understand from where a lot of their opinions stem. Recently, however, I discovered the following quote:
“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.”
-Tea Party News Radio

Now, I will agree that homeowners do have a financial investment in a community, but do not believe that this is the only form in which a vested interest can arise.  According to Wikipedia, "the homeownership rate in the United States in 2009 remained similar to that in other post-industrial nations with 67.4% of all occupied housing units being occupied by the unit's owner." One third of homes owned, are not inhabited by the owner of the building.

White Americans are significantly more likely to own a home along with married couples. Young, single Americans are some of the least likely to own a home with females being the least likely. The idea that homeowners have more of a right to vote than any other person singles out minorities and the youth. This idea that our society should center around home owners further separates the tea party movement from minorities and young adults. They have already seemed to alienate the youth with their lack of support for same-sex equality, lack of investment in education facilities such as taxes that support schools. The tea party movement is simply aimed at the baby boomers beginning retirement now. 

While my personal opinions tend to lean fiscally conservative and socially liberal, there are no candidates that really support this agenda. I do support the idea of welfare programs, such as food stamps and health care because I know people without those who still deserve to have a good life yet still believe The US, in my humble opinion, should try to conserve money, though, especially in this time of significant debt and through reducing spending in other areas. Most of the Millennials, the gen-y young adults of which I am a part of, tend to support the LBGT community with about two-thirds of the group believing in a deity. Politicians would be better off if they also looked into the views of young adults and made us feel as though we deserve to be heard, which is where, I believe, Obama succeeded. 

Now, I rambled on there to show my political affiliation to some extent and for readers to understand my point of view. Given the current movement to increase identification required at voting facilities, my question is this, though, do you believe that the right to vote should be limited in any way? Another politician likened this movement to a poll tax being required for citizens, do you believe these requirements reduce the already low turn-out for certain segments of the population?


  1. I think it definitely should.
    Not everyone is smart, educated or involved enough to make a good, valid decision about who to vote.
    Someone, who is easily affected by propaganda and commercials and all this BS, should not have the right to vote simply because he can be easily manipulated into voting for whoever is a better spokesman and has more money to spend on advertising.

  2. i think so, too. But it will never happen like that. To seperate who is intelligent enough or who not is not possible by millions of people + since everyone (should) have the same rights, the vote of a dumb man values the same as the vote of a doctor or professor.
    Also, money is not knowleddge.
    It would be not possible but the best way is to only let those vote who have a certain iq level

  3. Mekkor: The IQ thing would not be so bad of a method, but it's not optimal either.
    What I think should be used is some kind of psychotest, that determines how much you would be inclined to getting manipulated and if you are able to form your own opinion on things (which kinda eliminates anybody with poor IQ) mixed in with something, that tests your general knowledge about politics, history and other relevant subjects.

  4. I hate politics.

  5. im not sure if it will, but whats going to happen is that more people loos their home because of the world crisis since 2008. not just that all countrys like greece, spain, italy, even the USA are in huge debts, also the population, and houses are the ones everyone sells first...

  6. @Sacred Bob: Some people are highly intelligent yet do not score well on tests. That, and tests are easily influenced by bias. It would be very difficult to exclude segments of the population. I am a home renter, not owner, but I still love my community and would do what I can to make it better.
    @Mekkor: IQ tests are not a good indication of general knowledge or political knowledge. They have been disputed as an accurate measure of intelligence numerous times. Just because someone scores 140 on the test does not mean that they understand the implications of various bills.

  7. Xander: Yeah, well, if they do, they obviously shouldn't have the right to vote. It's not only about intelligence.

    If the tests have obvious correct and incorrect answers, that can't be interpreted differently, there can't be any bias. 4 + 4 is 8 no matter how much biased you are.
    Even if there was some bias, it would still be imho better than what we have now.

  8. "I do support the idea of welfare programs, such as food stamps and health care because I know people without those who still deserve to have a good life yet still believe The US, in my humble opinion, should try to conserve money, though, especially in this time of significant debt and through reducing spending in other areas." couldnt have said that any better.

  9. I believe that there should be some sort of 'test' or something to vote, so that you at least have an idea of what each candidate stands for, because you'll have people that just go in, and vote for who ever has the better looking face, or is a minority (I still say that's why Obama won)

  10. im starting to feel sorry for the usa.

  11. Too bad U.S. policy! We just have to look like they are now.

    Good blog and nice reflections¡