The Citizens' Report
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 24, 2019, 04:03:57 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25187 Posts in 4010 Topics by 320 Members
Latest Member: SMW
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The Citizens' Report
|-+  South Carolina
| |-+  Georgetown County SC
| | |-+  Politics and Current Events
| | | |-+  New method of voting for The City!!
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: New method of voting for The City!!  (Read 1579 times)
Lee Padgett
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2086


« on: July 30, 2018, 02:05:50 PM »

If San Fran can give illegal aliens, perhaps I should say undocumented citizens--yes that is much nicer, the right to vote in local only elections (yeah right!!) then why can't the City allow property owners that do not reside in the city the right to vote in City only elections?? At least they are documented citizens! And would allow these "citizens" to enjoy "taxation WITH representation" they so deserve as major stakeholders in the City?
Logged

"The death of objectivism and small government can be attributed to emotional politics." Liberty Laura
Marty Tennant
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5731



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2018, 03:39:02 PM »

I believe this would run afoul of the "one man, one vote" doctrine.

The San Fran issue is probably against the constitution.
Logged

Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.
Lee Padgett
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2086


« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2018, 04:03:52 PM »

Well the out of City property owners would only have one vote in city elections. Would not change their other votings requirements ie county, state, and federal voting requirements. We just extend city elections to them. The whole allowing "undocumented" persons to vote is absurd. The rest of us should join in, this gives us a chance to increase Republican votes in the limits. Let lawlessness and absurdity reign supreme.
Logged

"The death of objectivism and small government can be attributed to emotional politics." Liberty Laura
Marty Tennant
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5731



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2018, 04:54:11 PM »

has this ever been done anywhere else in SC, or other States?
Logged

Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.
Lee Padgett
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2086


« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2018, 12:06:31 AM »

No. I have heard complaints over the years that property owners that do not live in the City have no voice in local government. So if the people of San Fran think illegals should have a say in their community then why not upend our election laws? Allow those that own second homes here or commercial properties etc the right to vote for Mayor and Council. Of course this will require a city only voter registration and so forth to prevent abuse. I am just feeling punchy and leaning towards the absurd. Still blown away that a certain party is so desperate for votes that they will go to the lengths that California cities and others are proposing to allow illegals/the undocumented the right to vote locally. Just how does one ensure it is only done locally and not statewide or Federal?
Logged

"The death of objectivism and small government can be attributed to emotional politics." Liberty Laura
Tom Rubillo
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2018, 10:26:09 AM »

Are these property owners going to give up their right to vote at the address of their residence, choosing to vote in a municipal election here rather than, say, for the county council member from their home district in, say, Pawleys Island?  If not, the would be voting in multiple local elections violating the principle of "one person, one vote."  Giving a special or additional vote to "freeholders" (that's what land owners are called in the lingo of voting) at each place they hold title to property would skew elections very heavily in favor of the well-to-do and to the disadvantage of renters and those who haven't yet "moved on up" to property ownership for whatever reason.  Given the traditional political alignments of the past (which are getting pretty screwy these days with the Trumplicans vs. old line Republicans schism), the proposal giving extra votes to property owners would favor traditional Republicans move heavily, diluting the voting strength of traditional Democrats and blue collar Trumplicans.  So while nice to think about and ponder, I don't think the idea will get any traction where it counts, namely, in the halls of government where voting regulations and rules are set.   
Logged
Lee Padgett
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2086


« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2018, 08:12:24 AM »

Tom I see you mentioned the "well to do" but did not address the San Fran plan to give non citizens the right to vote. A plan which will unduly affect the well to do in that area. Why is it good to make modifications for local elections for one sect of people and not another. The purpose is not to give illegal citizens a voice in the Government but to give them a path to affect state and federal elections. If they can do it for their speculative reasons why can't we and others do it for different speculative reasons?
Logged

"The death of objectivism and small government can be attributed to emotional politics." Liberty Laura
Marty Tennant
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5731



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2018, 11:28:06 AM »

Allowing illegal aliens (yes, they are) to vote dilutes the votes of real citizens. I can't see this passing constitutional muster.
Logged

Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.
Tom Rubillo
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2018, 10:42:15 AM »

Why the change of subject?  The post started with a proposal about giving a right to vote in local elections to non-residents based on property ownership.  There was no mention of US citizenship in the proposal, leaving open the possibility (probably unintentionally and inadvertently) that property ownership was an adequate substitute for citizenship and could be a basis to entitle property owners the right to vote in more than one local election.  Now you've changed the subject to proposals in San Francisco to let non-citizens vote in their local elections.  But that's not what the posting started off discussing.  Not to be rude or disrespectful, but midstream changes in subject like that are not a legitimate way to discuss and resolve differences of opinion.  Personally, I think that US citizenship is a fundamental requirement to voting.  Legally, it is.  I see no reason to change any of that, just like I see no reason to give extra votes to someone based on their relative wealth or property ownership.  So let's stick to the subject.  If you want to change the subject, start a new posting.  Meanwhile, once a discussion of one subject begins on a particular posting, stick to that subject.  Midpost changes of subject, meanwhile, are a turn-off and discourage further reasonable discussion of the original posting.  Here, it was a proposal to qualify property owners to vote in local elections.  Stick to that.  If there's any question of what the original subject of a posting is, simply go back and read the first posting.  Please, let's not scramble around and change subjects to avoid responding to opposing views.  Think about those opposing views and respond.  Sometimes -- just sometimes -- sticking to the point can ultimately result in discovering points of agreement and resolution, in whole or in part, of the initial disagreement.
 
Logged
Marty Tennant
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5731



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2018, 07:20:35 PM »

Tom, if I were your English teacher, I'd coach you on how to avoid repetitive writing.

The original post started off introducing the subject of illegals voting in San Francisco, and I'll leave it there.
Logged

Notice:  All posts made by me are my OPINION.  I am not responsible for any comments by others!  The Citizens' Report is provided as a public service to the citizens of Georgetown County for them to report and comment on the news.
Lee Padgett
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2086


« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2018, 07:44:43 PM »

Tom it was satire or the absurd based on San Fran. As Marty said read the original post on the thread.
Logged

"The death of objectivism and small government can be attributed to emotional politics." Liberty Laura
Tom Rubillo
Newbie
*
Posts: 47


« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2018, 10:37:10 AM »

Lee, I stand corrected and apologize. I'm the one who lost focus. 
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!