I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the scenarios had to be implemented.
Some of the points that came up were:
1. Richer people generally are better educated and so make more informed decisions and so by giving them more votes, you are ensuring that the right people get into power and do the best job possible.
The counter-argument to this point was that while giving them more votes might help, human nature shows that people generally look after themselves and so the richer people will vote for people who don't look after the poor of society e.g the poor wouldn't receive welfare from taxpayers' money. (The rich are generally the biggest taxpayers)
2. However, rich came back with the notion that the rich people, having more education, are more likely to be trusted in decision making than the poor, who vote for extremists as history has shown with the Great Depression and the conversion of many governments to fascism. Many poor people vote for people who promise but don't provide, argued rich. A example would be all the poor of Zimbabwe voting for Robert Mugabe, who today is still a ruthless dictator.
Poor came to say that giving rich people more votes is supremacy and that the government would not represent the majority of the population.
I will refrain from posting anymore as I will leave you to give your own opinion. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186458
27 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by TygertI'm pretty sure that voting for a government you want to be in charge happens only in democracies (I know there are non democratic countries where they "vote" for the leader of the only party in the "election"😉 and as such every person eligible to vote has but one vote. Your wealth should never be a factor.
I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the sc ...[text shortened]... n. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
P.S. : Thank you doctor for the transfusion.🙄😲ðŸ˜
27 Sep 13
6 edits
Originally posted by Tygert1. Richer people generally are better educated and so make more informed decisions and so by giving them more votes, you are ensuring that the right people get into power and do the best job possible
I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the sc ...[text shortened]... n. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
But for the stupid elements of the rich people we are talking about here (arguably a fifty-fifty split), they are exposed to that education because of their wealth (or to be precise, the wealth of their parents) as opposed to their intrinsic intelligence. Indeed for those that are "born with a silver spoon" they can achieve a good standard of education more by force than they can by ability.
It does not at all follow that the rich are deserving of the more responsible or demanding jobs.
However, rich came back with the notion that the rich people, having more education, are more likely to be trusted in decision making than the poor, who vote for extremists as history has shown with the Great Depression and the conversion of many governments to fascism. Many poor people vote for people who promise but don't provide, argued rich. A example would be all the poor of Zimbabwe voting for Robert Mugabe, who today is still a ruthless dictator.
On the flip side, it could also be argued that the rich were paid off in some way by Mugabe in order to secure their votes or to look the other way as the polls were rigged or the more seditious members of the poor were trampled on. I can imagine many poor people (myself once) who are skeptical of rich people making promises they will not deliver on.
It is typically the less intelligent people who vote on the back of charisma and promises; and to this end, you should acknowledge that poor does not imply stupid.
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by TygertThe rich always have more votes. In the US, it's done through advertizing. The rich tell the poor how to vote via TV commercials.
I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the sc ...[text shortened]... n. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by TygertWould this difference carry over to reapportionment of congressional representation? A district with more wealthy than poor people would suddenly have more votes under this scheme than a oppositely situated district with the same population count, so shouldn't it have more representatives? (Recall the three-fifths compromise that counted a slave as 3/5 of person for apportionment purposes even though they couldn't vote at all.)
I recently had a debate with a friend about this issue. We didn't each take one particular side, but rather showed points for both sides of the issue. Comments? For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the sc ...[text shortened]... n. I would normally post this in the debates forum, but I think this forum needs some lifeblood.
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by Great Big SteesI already said I agree with one-man-one-vote but look at this quote from the first post:
I'm pretty sure that voting for a government you want to be in charge happens only in democracies (I know there are non democratic countries where they "vote" for the leader of the only party in the "election"😉 and as such every person eligible to vote has but one vote. Your wealth should never be a factor.
P.S. : Thank you doctor for the transfusion.🙄😲ðŸ˜
For the sake of the debate, please don't say one-man-one-vote because we all know that that is the best way to go, this is a hypothetical scenario in which we discuss the implications if one of the scenarios had to be implemented.
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by JS357I think there must be some kind of compromise between the two: The more education, the more votes is the in between.
Would this difference carry over to reapportionment of congressional representation? A district with more wealthy than poor people would suddenly have more votes under this scheme than a oppositely situated district with the same population count, so shouldn't it have more representatives? (Recall the three-fifths compromise that counted a slave as 3/5 of person for apportionment purposes even though they couldn't vote at all.)
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by AgergThe point rich was making was that people started off voting for Mugabe. My maid is Zimbabwean and she says no-one votes for Mugabe anymore. But, when the first election happened, they all voted for him and he has held onto his power using unfair means. The whole situation could have been prevented if they had voted for the right person.
[b]1. Richer people generally are better educated and so make more informed decisions and so by giving them more votes, you are ensuring that the right people get into power and do the best job possible
But for the stupid elements of the rich people we are talking about here (arguably a fifty-fifty split), they are exposed to that education because of t ...[text shortened]... charisma and promises; and to this end, you should acknowledge that poor does not imply stupid.[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by TygertOh so it's formal education, not wealth. I didn't catch the change. But I hear you on apportionment. Apportion by population.
I think there must be some kind of compromise between the two: The more education, the more votes is the in between.
27 Sep 13
3 edits
Originally posted by TygertIf that is the point that rich made then it is not the point you present in your OP. Indeed according to the OP, rich argues
The point rich was making was that people started off voting for Mugabe. My maid is Zimbabwean and she says no-one votes for Mugabe anymore. But, when the first election happened, they all voted for him and he has held onto his power using unfair means. The whole situation could have been prevented if they had voted for the right person.
A example would be all the poor of Zimbabwe voting for Robert Mugabe, who today is still a ruthless dictator.where "ing" implies present tense; yet you now suggest rich actually argues something more along the lines of
An example would be all the poor of Zimbabwe who voted for Robert Mugabe in the first election.which is past tense.
Further, your maid
I assume you never have and never will have financial difficulties then?
doesn't support rich's argument that poor people vote for extremists (since she says that no-one votes for Mugabe anymore).
Finally, are you able to demonstrate that all the poor voted for him (and had access to information that clearly demonstrating he was likely to turn into the monster we know today)? (and that no significant proportion of rich voted for him first time round also?)
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by Agergwhere "ing" implies present tense; yet you now suggest rich actually argues something more along ...[text shortened]... today)? (and that no significant proportion of rich voted for him first time round also?)[/b]1. It doesn't matter when they voted for him, they voted for him. Rich's argument did not depend on the chronological order of the voting, more whether they did or didn't. That's why I didn't bother making them the same tense. You see, if they had better education, they would never have voted for Mugabe in the first place. Now they realise he has ruined country, 30 years later. The problem is now that they only had to vote for him once; even if they don't vote for him now he'll keep his power.
If that is the point that rich made then it is not the point you present in your OP. Indeed according to the OP, rich argues
A example would be [b]allthe poor of Zimbabwe voting for Robert Mugabe, who today is still a ruthless dictator.
Onto your last points, I am confidently able to say that after the racist white government, all the poor of Zimbabwe voted for their hero who promised them everything and to punish the rich people, Robert Mugabe.
We can prove that people could have forecasted his monstrosity by his simple policy: Give everything that kept the Zimbabwean economy afloat to the poor, who didn't how to work the land. The example of this was he gave all the tobacco farms to poor people who couldn't maintain them. The economy collapsed and soon inflation soared; you could buy a loaf of bread for 5 billion Zim dollars. This giving back was clearly in his pre-election policy.
Finally, I seriously doubt the rich people who knew their land would be taken away if Mugabe got into power voted for him. Evidence enough?