[Grovenet] (no subject)

[allnutt]

I have a son who is now eligible to join the military yet he does not pay 
taxes and he has not graduated from high school yet.  I think that since the 
people who get elected can easily implement laws that will potentially 
require him to sacrifice his own life he and people like him should be able 
to vote even though they don't meet the criteria.

It would be good to require only people who have studied the issues and who 
have something at stake in the country to vote but it is problematic in how 
we monitor such a requirement.  Even in Novembers election one of the 
candidates was heavily criticized because he hadn't bothered to vote for 
many of the preceding elections, and then he wanted to run for a state 
office.
Would not bothering to vote even though you were present and available be a 
sufficient reason to suspend someone's right to vote? And what if you were a 
property owner who fell on hard times and went through a bankruptcy (perhaps 
through no fault of your own say in a natural disaster like a hurricane or 
earthquake and your insurance didn't cover your losses) and were trying to 
get yourself back on your feet. Would you immedidately suspend the right to 
vote or let people carry it over for a while?

I think a bigger problem that we face is the fact that people who do have a 
stake in the country, who do own property, and who have graduated from high 
school (or even college) don't bother to vote or vote only sporadically.  If 
we could tackle that one first there might be some impetus for restricting 
the vote assuming there was some evidence that the 'ones who shouldn't vote' 
changed the outcome but for now it would be great if we could get those with 
a stake to vote at all.

Katie
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <rondec at easystreet.com>
To: "'Forest Grove local interests list'" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] (no subject)


> No, of course it's not a "poll tax". It's representation for those who pay
> taxes. If you don't pay taxes, you don't vote.
>
> There's no charge for voting, nor is there any fee assessed for voting. 
> The
> underlying philosophy of our founding fathers to which I subscribe is that
> someone must step up and  make an investment in the nation before they 
> have
> the right to vote. We've done away with that, and  I think it's a mistake.
>
> Actually, in my view the most important part is having at least a minimal
> education. That is, at least a High School diploma. Perhaps we should 
> extend
> the vote to those who have served honorably in the military as well,
> regardless of education.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Deena
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:02 PM
> To: Grovenet
> Subject: [Grovenet] (no subject)
>
>
> Ron said: <snip>
> (1) Personally, I'd like to see the vote limited to those who have 
> completed
> High School, passed the same citizenship test anyone immigrating passes, 
> and
> who own property or who paid income taxes the previous year.
>
> Ron, the second half of this sounds suspiciously like a poll tax. I'm
> sure you don't mean that that way, since that was declared
> unConstitutional.  How could you implement this (even with the or)
> and not disenfranchise a fair segment of the senior community? Those
> who are dependent on Social Security and who no longer own real
> property come to mind.
>
> Deena
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>