COMMENTS:
Poll tax?? Maybe this woman should take a mental health test before she's allowed to write anything or appear on television.
by aya on Mon Feb 21, 05 10:03am
[+]
So there are taxes they favor!
I'm sure Ann would favour such a tax as long as she herself doesn't have to pay it. She is, as Al Franken called her, the hysterical diva of the reigning right.
by aya on Mon Feb 21, 05 10:07am
[+]
So she says all votes should be bought. I'm glad this douchenozzle finally admitted it.
She should have her own show on tv, would make a great comedy sketch lmao. the "woman" has taken leave of all her senses, thats assuming she had any in the first place.
I don't think people should pay anything to vote (paying taxes is enough), but some kind of testing should be necessary. Those who are elected should be also tested.
I don't know who this woman is, but it seems to me she's the female version of Dubya.
johan: If testing were mandatory, then "He who controls the testing, controls the election."
Plus, are people who can't pass an arbitrary test no part of the country? Do they have no rights to representation?
Well, about controlling the test, I admit, that could be a problem.
About the second part. Depends what you mean by representation. The Romanian law doctrine says that the primordial purpose of a parliament is to represent the opinions and political orientation in a country (so in this way the parliament represents the country). And I agree with this opinion. So I don't think it is a good thing for stupid opinions to be represented in parliament. In other words I don't see any problem in not taking in consideration the opinion of such people. (This is quite a subjective way of thinking, so I admit, someone who is putting democratic rules above everything can disagree with me).
But, if, by representation you actually mean support in solving some personal or community problems (I know in US the relation between a congressman and his voters is much, much tighter than in European countries), I also see no problem, because denying the right to vote shouldn't mean also denying the right to be supported when in need.
I'm in favor of some sort of test, but not a poll tax. However I don't think people on welfare should be allowed to vote for the time that they are recieving federal funds.
That would mean Dick Cheney would never get to vote, since he and the Halliburton Corporation are on perpetual Federal welfare.
If she's even close to right (which she ISN'T), then we need to add on a drug test and a morality/ethics test. Somebody PLEASE send her an inflatable Hillary Clinton punching bag, so she'll occupy herself with pursuits less mentally strenuous!
Poll tax was eliminated because it sometimes stopped people of darker skin complexions from voting. I always suspected Ann Coulter was a racist.
A country with a poll tax is not a free country.
literacy test, absolutely - people should know what they are voting on and be responsible enough for their actions, however, how does one qualify just what it means to be literate enough to vote? This would be a tough determination therefore maybe not fair.
Poll tax - HELL NO, this would limit many people who's have every right to express their views thru the polling booth, not just because they may not have the m money to pay, but people like myself, I'm not going to pay money to vote because I don't see how that is democracy at all, it's as though someone is purchasing the election.
Voted : Yes
Poll tax, no - literacy test, yes
by Kiki on Sun Mar 11, 07 4:16pm
[+]
|
