"Should the Poor Be Allowed to Vote?"

[applegrove]

Should the Poor Be Allowed to Vote?

by Peter Beinart at the Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/the-new-poll-tax/381791/

"SNIP...................


Start with Mitt Romney. In 2012, at a fundraiser with ultra-wealthy donors, the Republican nominee famously denigrated the “47 percent” of Americans who “believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing”—to a welfare state. Because these self-appointed “victims” were voting in order to get things from government, Romney argued, their motives were inferior to the potential Romney voters who “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

In distinguishing between Americans whose economic independence permits them to make reasoned political choices and those who because of their poverty cannot, Romney was channeling a hoary American tradition. In 1776, John Adams argued that men (let alone women) “who are wholly destitute of Property” were “too dependent upon other Men to have a Will of their own.” In 1800, only three states allowed property-less white men to vote. For most of the 20th century, southern states imposed “poll taxes” that effectively barred not only African Americans from voting but some poor whites as well.

Romney didn’t suggest that the 47 percent be denied the right to vote, of course. But other Republicans have flirted with the idea. In 2010, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips observed that “The Founding Fathers … put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote … 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.” In 2011, Iowa Representative Steve King made a similar observation, noting approvingly, “There was a time in American history when you had to be a male property owner in order to vote. The reason for that was, because [the Founding Fathers] wanted the people who voted—that set the public policy, that decided on the taxes and the spending—to have some skin in the game. Now we have data out there that shows that 47 percent of American households don’t pay taxes … But many of them are voting. And when they vote, they vote for more government benefits.” In 2012, Florida House candidate Ted Yoho remarked, “I’ve had some radical ideas about voting and it’s probably not a good time to tell them, but you used to have to be a property owner to vote.” Yoho went on to win the election.



....................SNIP"

[Skittles]

1. arrogant bastards

the idea that ANYONE in a community has no "skin in the game" is RIDICULOUS

[rocktivity]

2. They don't pay taxes because they don't make enough money

Try paying them more!


rocktivity

[KeepItReal]

3. They pay payroll taxes and sales taxes

Unless they've managed to live in the USA without shopping ever.

[gollygee]

4. People who don't own property

don't have a vested stake in the community? Hmmm.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Trust me, property tax is included in the rent.

[gollygee]

11. Yes it certainly is

And there are other ways to be invested in your community.

[applegrove]

5. And check out this paragraph:

"SNIP.....................

Voter-identification laws, in particular, act as new form of poll tax. After Texas passed its voter-ID law, a study found that Texans who earned less than $20,000 per year were more than 10 times more likely to lack the necessary identification than Texans who earned more than $150,000. On the surface, this discrepancy might seem possible to remedy, since courts have generally demanded that the states that require voter identification provide some form of ID for free. But there’s a catch. Acquiring that free ID requires showing another form of identification—and those cost money. In the states with voter-ID laws, notes a report by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, “Birth certificates can cost between $8 and $25. Marriage licenses, required for married women whose birth certificates include a maiden name, can cost between $8 and $20. By comparison, the notorious poll tax—outlawed during the civil rights era—cost $10.64 in current dollars.”

................SNIP"

[fadedrose]

7. If they want food stamps, etc., proof of voting should be mandatory

and that goes for other benefits too. ID's should be furnished by the local voting boards..

I wonder if they even know who's responsible for the help they get....if not, it's time they found out..

[theHandpuppet]

14. I can't believe I'm reading that here on DU

The people who truly receive the biggest breaks in this country are the rich. If you don't know who's responsible for the help they get... perhaps it's time you found out and stopped blaming the poor.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. That was my first response, but then I reread it.

The commenter was saying the poor should HAVE to vote, not that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Ie, they should have to have more input into making decisions that help or hurt them. Presumably, that would mean they'd actually vote to help the poor, and we'd actually have a stronger safety net. The rich are more than happy to vote, heck, they'd vote as many times as they could if given the chance.

I think we could go to mandatory voting for everyone, though, and still achieve a similar outcome.

[theHandpuppet]

38. Sorry, but I read it correctly the first time

The poor should no more be required to vote than they should be prevented from voting. They especially shouldn't be required to vote as a condition to keep from starving. That's reprehensible. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the poor are not our enemies, the powerless are not our enemies, the hungry or uneducated are not our enemies. The ones pulling the strings in this country can be found among the uber rich and their corporate allies. The poor are not to blame for what ails this nation or its political process.

I never thought I'd see the day on DU when anyone would suggest the poor should be required to produce an ID proving that they're voted in order to eat. We have seriously lost our way.

[fadedrose]

39. The poor should not have to worry about the process of voting

The voting board should make sure, as part of their job, that anyone who is eligible to vote gets FREE ID, picture, or whatever else they need. And they should be reassured that no tax man is coming to take their few possessions away. They need to understand that voting will HELP them, not hurt them...

Maybe it sounded cruel, but I didn't mean for it to be. I think that the non-voting poor are afraid, maybe of threats..

Many of the poor still think they must pay for ID, poll tax, or in some way will be penalized...maybe they lack a permanent address, no employment, and have served a jail sentence and are now qualified.....they are afraid it might hurt them.

Old, on pension, and I feel poor though I have enough to live on, pay utilities, etc., but I would not give up my vote. Even if my guy doesn't win, I feel that I did my best to change things, not just for me, but for everyone....

I wish all the poor and close to poor would feel that way.

[Skidmore]

18. Because people who are or become impoverished do so because

it is aspirational. When I was a child our family was impoverished, not because we chose to be, but because my father was hospitalized for a prolonged period of time. For a period of time, our family received benefits in the form of surplus commodities. Believe me, we knew where the assistance came from and hungry children were thankful to have a meal after school. The cruelest thing I remember was being made fun of in public for wearing a hand me down dress from my cousin. This notion that people should be subjected to public humiliation when they are the most in need reminds me of that public shaming. People don't enjoy living in poverty and too often we now see that the bootstraps have been cut off and the ladder pulled up so that even the lowest rung is unreachable for certain groups. Grovelling for the scraps and giving away their voice in society is the price for not going hungry or without shelter now? Why should proof of voting be required at all when someone is need? Have we become so unable to empathize with others? And, in this great crapshoot of capitalism, is there no recognition of the very real possibility that most of us, including the vaunted professional/middle class, can lose too?

[theHandpuppet]

19. Great post!

Thank you.

[WinkyDink]

26. I wonder if YOU even know who's responsible for their plights. If not, it's time you found out.

[Thinkingabout]

8. It would be dumb for the GOP to prevent the poor from voting, there are lots of

Poorer than church mice who vote for Republicans. Perhaps we should prevent those on the take from the guberment like Romney who raided a pension fund of one of his take over endeavors' and received $44 million to fund it back again.

[Prophet 451]

9. Just waiting for them to reinstate the property clause

The aim of teh monied elite has always been to have a population so desperate that they will work for pennies and no benefits. That's what's behind teh resistance to even having a minimum wage and what's behind the gutting of welfare and (soon) social security. They want to go back to the era when you slaved for twelve or more hours for whatever the boss felt like paying you and if you lost your job, fuck you, you starve in the streets. The only thing that's been preventing them is that poor people won't vote to fuck themselves over. The solution: Prevent poor people from voting.

[Kalidurga]

10. Should rich people be able to vote to contribute to campaigns?

After all they are only going to look out for what they think is their best interest. Letting them vote is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

[hobbit709]

12. Bringing back the early 19th century, where only white males of property could vote.

Blacks and Native Americans were 3/5 of a person and women didn't count at all

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Native Americans couldn't vote and weren't citizens until 1924 (n/t)

[hobbit709]

17. Like I said, early 19th century.

[tkmorris]

23. 1924 is the 20th century

[hobbit709]

24. But early 19th is where they want to put us. Women couldn't vote until 1920 either.

Before women had a vote-hell before women even had property rights, before Blacks and Native Americans were counted as people, and when only white males of property could vote.

[WinkyDink]

28. The poster is referring not to when rights kicked in, but BEFORE THEN.

[merrily]

27. Not that long after women got the vote, women being a majority of the US population.

[True Blue Door]

13. Vote suppression is Treason.

And actual, de jure removal of the right to vote...that would be civil war. It's a promise, motherfuckers.

[merrily]

30. Try telling that to the Framers, who actually defined treason for the US.

When the Constitution was adopted--by state legislators--only about 6% of the US population was eligible to vote.

[True Blue Door]

33. Tell you what: If they take away YOUR right to vote, I won't call THAT treason.

[merrily]

34. As Jon Stewart might say, "You seem nice."

[justabob]

15. should rich folks who don't pay taxes be restricted from voting?

The reason for that was, because wanted the people who voted—that set the public policy, that decided on the taxes and the spending—to have some skin in the game. Now we have data out there that shows that 47 percent of American households don’t pay taxes … But many of them are voting. And when they vote, they vote for more government benefits

What about those wealthy folks who do not pay taxes and vote for more government benefits for themselves? Works both ways, no?

[Gothmog]

20. This is a great article

The latest voter id laws are poll taxes and keep the poor from voting. Conservatives see nothing wrong with this which is sad

[Orsino]

21. Oh, we'll see more of this.

Aristocracy is the GOP platform. They're just not quite ready to come out and say so.

[atreides1]

35. They've been saying it for years

The American people just aren't smart enough to read between the lines...

[hifiguy]

22. This is going to be the next big push from the RWNJs.

Bet the farm on it the next time a Repig is elected president. Marching in lockstep with the efforts to disenfranchise racial minorities.

[WinkyDink]

25. Correction: "In FALSELY distinguishing....." The R-W has been pushing "Democratic = Ignorant" for a

while now.

Young women, immigrants, the poor, ethnic minorities, anyone who subscribes to Democratic principles must be, BY DEFINITION, ignorant and therefore ought NOT be allowed to vote (or even reside here, in some cases).

IF ONLY PEOPLE KNEW MORE, THEY WOULD VOTE REPUBLICAN! THE MESSAGE ISN'T GETTING THROUGH!

I believe the term is "low-information voters."

[elleng]

29. The poor should be PAID to vote,

not for particular candidates, but subsidized to promote a high voter turnout.

[merrily]

31. There's voting and then there's actually being represented by the people for whom you vote.

Which is more important?

[L0oniX]

32. Certified IQ qualified voters ...next.

[Adrahil]

37. John Adams' words need to be considered on context.

Adam's was concerned about the ability of landlords to control the votes of their tenants. England, at the time, was rife with "Rotten Boroughs" where the votes of whole districts were literally OWNED by a dominant local landlord who could essentially dictate the votes of his tenants. He was concerned that a similar corrupt political system would arise here. As land ownership proliferated, it became more difficult for local landlords to control the vote, though, of course, may political seats are STILL controlled by localized business interests.