# 1 man, 1 vote



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

About 90% of the counties in the country voted for Bush.

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm)

From the map you can see that the heavily populated areas supported Kerry. These are areas where the people are dependent on the government too much. By in large, these are areas where people don't own their own homes--they don't have a clue to what it takes to support yourself. We need a voting system where if your on the dole, your vote shouldn't count as much because you will always vote for politicians who will use taxpayers money to support your needs. I would like a system where if you're a private property owner or a least not on wellfare you get 1 vote and if your on welfare you get 1/2 a vote.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Gunner,
Was this a joke? are you that sheltered, perhaps you think women shouldn't vote? Or a womens vote should only count one half of yours?
Maybe farmers should only have a half of a vote after all they do receive handouts also. Your comparison of rural verses city is funny take a deeper look at it, I bet you coundn't afford to live in some urban areas that voted for Kerry. I admire your courage for posting your opinion but it is as un American as it can get. With your mentioned method, which is a vote is based on your income, maybe you think a rich persons vote should count 5 times that of yours?

You mention home ownership as a possible method by wich to alow you the right to vote? Have you owned a home since you were 18? should a 20 year old person fighting in Iraq who doesn't own a home be denied the right to vote?

TC :2cents:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

Great post TC !


----------



## Gunner (Oct 30, 2002)

Much of it yes was toungue-in-cheek, however we have become too dependent on the government in the urban areas of the country. What we need from government is to provide defense, infrastructure and ensure a competitive buisness culture. There are too many government programs using taxpayers money--the welfare vote is particularly toublesome to me.

You'll notice further in my statement that I suggested at least if you are on the wellfare system (for let's say 6 months), you're vote shouldn't count as much because you are leeching off society. I work too hard to make a living and have enough mouths to feed in my own family and I'm vehemently opposed to being forced to support a stranger and/or their family--that's their job and the church's (I give 15% of my income to the church for such needs). Of course there are exceptions when an individual is not capable of working.

I agree, property ownership wouldn't be a good measure for determining the weight of your vote.

Social programs are ill conceived and haven't worked yet and never will.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"From the map you can see that the heavily populated areas supported Kerry. These are areas where the people are dependent on the government too much. By in large, these are areas where people don't own their own homes--they don't have a clue to what it takes to support yourself. We need a voting system where if your on the dole, your vote shouldn't count as much because you will always vote for politicians who will use taxpayers money to support your needs. I would like a system where if you're a private property owner or a least not on wellfare you get 1 vote and if your on welfare you get 1/2 a vote."

Frankly I feel that the rural areas are far too dependant on mash whiskey. I thus feel that their votes shouldn't count as much because odds are they are drunk anyway :lol: :withstupid:


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

:rollin: Now that is funny..........not very PC, but funny! :rollin:


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Wow Gunner,
I'm glad you responded, by your 2nd post I get the impression you are someone who is smarter than I first thought. I to agree that hard working people such as you and I are taken advatage of by those that milk the system, the difference between us maybe I can't stand the corporate welfare that is going on in this country. Welfare is welfare. 
I don't know about your community but in my town we have been handing out millions to shady companies that promise jobs and don't deliver, the same could be said for some on unemployment who take the money and promise to get a job but don't. The sad thing is I know of several who would like to get a start in business but can't because they can't employ 200-300 people at start up.

As for the argument that urban areas depend on the gov more so than rural, thats not true for North Dakota. We receive more federal dollars back from the gov than we pay in when it comes to taxes. I think the exact opposite is true of what you were thinking, I think rural areas are much more dependant on the Gov.

TC


----------

