EXPAND THE VOTE

[MilSpecs]

I think it's a good idea if limited to county elections. If you own property in two counties, you are paying taxes to two counties. Why not vote in each county election?

You are not voting twice in the same elections.

The land doesn't have the vote; the person does.

That's a neat trick so when I don't pay taxes on the land you can arrest the land.

You believe in vote by land ownership?

All I'd have to do to win an election is convince the larger landholders.

[clubgop]

The land doesn't have the vote; the person does.

That's a neat trick so when I don't pay taxes on the land you can arrest the land.

You believe in vote by land ownership?

All I'd have to do to win an election is convince the larger landholders.

Ah no. Voting based on residency. He resides in both places. Separate county elections are bothersome and probably unworkable but the principle dog.

[MilSpecs]

That's a neat trick so when I don't pay taxes on the land you can arrest the land.

You believe in vote by land ownership?

All I'd have to do to win an election is convince the larger landholders.

Ah no. Voting based on residency. He resides in both places. Separate county elections are bothersome and probably unworkable but the principle dog.

You'd still be getting a double vote and it would still come down to wealth.

[clubgop]

You believe in vote by land ownership?

All I'd have to do to win an election is convince the larger landholders.

Ah no. Voting based on residency. He resides in both places. Separate county elections are bothersome and probably unworkable but the principle dog.

You'd still be getting a double vote and it would still come down to wealth.

A double vote where? Wealth? WTF you talking bout?

[Kath]

You'd still be getting a double vote and it would still come down to wealth.

Specifically, in two completely separate county-specific elections, what office would he be double-voting for?

[nmoore63]

Certainly he is not arguing for two votes in some sort of aggravated system.

But no taxation with representation was kind of a founding principle.

Appears LadyMil disagrees.

Princess. Get it right.

One man one vote is pretty traditional. Otherwise I can imagine counties turning into kingdoms ruled by major landowners (again, even more than currently happens).

We used to do “bro”name all the time on the dcf. I been drinking. I asked the wife. She said lady so I went with it.

supposed I could have gone SisterMil.

[nmoore63]

You believe in vote by land ownership?

All I'd have to do to win an election is convince the larger landholders.

Ah no. Voting based on residency. He resides in both places. Separate county elections are bothersome and probably unworkable but the principle dog.

You'd still be getting a double vote and it would still come down to wealth.

No double vote. Just get to vote in either counties local decisions.

One vote on a state wide item.

I wonder if counties work the same outside of the west.

We have county votes for hospital property taxes levies and such all the time.

[MilSpecs]

You'd still be getting a double vote and it would still come down to wealth.

Specifically, in two completely separate county-specific elections, what office would he be double-voting for?

I'm thinking how it would work here if the big landowners who straddle two counties had more power.

[MilSpecs]

Certainly he is not arguing for two votes in some sort of aggravated system.

But no taxation with representation was kind of a founding principle.

Appears LadyMil disagrees.

Princess. Get it right.

One man one vote is pretty traditional. Otherwise I can imagine counties turning into kingdoms ruled by major landowners (again, even more than currently happens).

We used to do “bro”name all the time on the dcf. I been drinking. I asked the wife. She said lady so I went with it.

supposed I could have gone SisterMil.

It was a joke on my part. Lady ... Princess. I been sleeping.

[nmoore63]

You'd still be getting a double vote and it would still come down to wealth.

Specifically, in two completely separate county-specific elections, what office would he be double-voting for?

I'm thinking how it would work here if the big landowners who straddle two counties had more power.

On the one hand, Monsanto getting one vote wouldn’t have any impact on Ephrata let alone any place with an actual population.

On the other hand, now you are thinking about ends instead of means. That’s the same utilitarian process as StA challenging woman’s sufferage. Should the impact of women’s sufferage be a factor in deciding if women sufferage was right?