Are there any good arguments for property qualifications for voting?

I would have thought the idea would have been a dead letter for well over a century now, but, based on this recent post by Huerta88, apparently some conservatives still recent poor people voting. Seems to me we already have a system where people with property and education wield political influence out of proportion to their numbers – so what would be the advantage in disfranchising the poor?

Seems to me it would also disqualify a great many middle- and upper-class urban dwellers who rent their apartments.

Well, I don’t think it’s a popular view amongst conservatives, but I guess one argument for property qualifications for voting would be that people with property have a kind of ownership stake in the country…that they’re less likely to support radicalism, and more likely to care that the country do well, because they have a stake in protecting their property, while the poor are more likely to support demogogues who promise to take away their poverty and make them rich.

I guess another argument that you could take is that people with property and education have education and are more likely to be informed about political issues and more likely to make good decisions in voting.

A third would be a variant of the saying, “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?”…that rich people are just better than poor people, and more deserving of the franchise.

Those are the three reasons I can think of.

Yeah, I wondered about that too. Some versions of the idea only allow owners of real property to vote. :confused: It’s like they’re channelling the Duke of Wellington (who, as Prime Minister, vigorously opposed the Reform Act of 1832 on the express grounds that Britain’s greatness depended on the “landed interest,” i.e. the landowning gentry class, monopolizing political power).

I don’t think there are any reasons that make sense in a modern Western structure of laws (all men created equal, etc). The government effects everyone, regardless of wealth.

The one argument I have seen is that since the wealthy pay more taxes they should have more say, so poor people should not be allowed to vote. I honestly see this as a morally bankrupt attempt to increase one’s own power at the expense of others. Equally spurious arguments could be made for any group: “only minorities should be able to vote, as they are more likely to have contact with law enforcement due to profiling”, “only the poor should vote, the wealthy already in effect have more influence due to their money and the ability to finance campaigns”, etc, etc.

I also strongly suspect that any real movement to do this (in any direction) would probably be the end of the country as we know it. I think it would destroy itself in civil war. Finally I could stop snickering at the phrase “class warfare” - I’ll give users a pass if they’re using it to describe their friends hanging from lampposts rather then a small change in the marginal rate!

Tyranny of the majority. Welfare recipients will vote themselves more entitlements.

I think any political class will gladly vote themselves money without a damn good reason not to - “welfare” recipient or not. So that particular theory doesn’t hold with me.

I can see a case can be made on a limited basis for the homeowners or condo-owners association - the owners of real property in a limited area can form an association to maintain certain property and capital in common, and elect leadership to manage this. This would have to be restricted to property owners in the area and not just residents - though they have political rights through other political bodies that they do have a vote in, through the town, county, state, school district and so on.

And even with this, I am wary of the power of these associations and the abuse they have made of this power in the past.

Right, but they are not contributing, they are withdrawing net. Any group wants to vote themselves entitlements certainly, but as the poor are the vast majority in any society if welfare becomes a superior profession to menial labor then the society breaks down. There becomes no incentive at all to become a contributor to the social welfare and enfranchisement becomes a tool by which they continue to be supported by others.

I’d say we could restructure it to taxpayers. You have to pay a certain amount of taxes in a year to be able to vote. I think what you describe is already the case in terms of homeowner’s associations in suburban communities.

I think it’s already like this.

Quibble: many conservatives have no interest in voting to have the government affirmatively give them “government money” (other people’s money) through direct subsidy, in the way that welfare recipients do. “Tax cuts” aren’t “giving” money to the rich – they’re allowing them to keep slightly more of what they’ve earned. There is no realistic scenario in which rich citizens would vote in a way that would lead them to get “government money” (there’s no such thing) that had been extorted from poor citizens, so the cases are not as parallel as you imply.

I use the property ownership as a proxy for reasonably vested, probably well informed, voter, but those who point out that it made a lot more sense in an era in which we were more agrarian, and in which most wealth was tied up in/taxed through land are not totally wrong. IRL, I’d probably favor some minimum income tax threshold, or a poll tax, these days. Yes, yes, that makes me evil and every freerider should have the same vote as me. Bring it on.

And that’s really the argument. The franchise has historically expanded in the United States for both ethical reasons and because those not being extended voting rights have been continually screwed over.

There is very little evidence for a subgroup being given power and NOT abusing the group without it.

If welfare recipients are the majority, then voting rights are the least of your country’s problems.

You’ve put it so well, and so succinctly, it cannot be improved upon.

That’s not really what I said, but I can see the confusion.

I said the POOR are the majority. Well in our case it’s the middle-class but the further you expand entitlements the higher and higher up the pay scale you disincentivize.

How do they do that? Bills have to be offered on the floor to do that.

So where would you draw that threshold? Afterall, someone who has a $1 billion has more financial stake in the country than you (unless you are a billionaire). It is entirely reasonable to extend your premise to the point where you do not get a vote anymore either (say by making the poll tax $100,000). If you can afford $100,000 to vote I am confident you do so because you have a substantial stake in the country thus making that vote worthy. Those who cannot afford that clearly do not have a sufficient stake to make their vote worthwhile.

Quibble: not in states with referenda.

More to the point, the argument is that they will vote for representatives who will offer such bills.

You haven’t been following the news lately, have you? Does the name “AIG” ring any bells? The AIG executives did indeed get themselves a nice chunk of government money, most of which came from citizens poorer than themselves.

If only the rich could vote, what would stop that from being the rule rather than the exception?

This is always just an attempt to disenfranchise political opponents.
Generally the people who want to limit the franchise now are white men who style themselves as conservatives. I run into bunches of them on gun boards. They always claim that property owners have a greater stake in the welfare of the country and that poor people will vote themselves money from the treasury.
For much of our history, the franchise was limited to white men. Surprise! We ended up with a legal system and a society that favored white men. Limit it to property owners and we’ll end up with a system that favors property owners.

Just out of curiosity, how would this property ownership to vote requirement work for couples? My spouse and I own a house, do we both get to vote? Would we each pay a poll tax? Does it depend on if we are both employed? What about kids at home who reach the age of 18?

One can profit from government favoritism without receiving a direct subsidy. The government can build infrastructure that directly benefits you, pass laws that harm your competitors, or weaken regulations on shady business practices.

This is why we have lobbyists. An entire industry has been built up with the sole purpose of getting Congress to vote in ways that will lead to financial gain for powerful individuals and corporations. And, in extreme cases, these lobbyists ARE able to swing direct subsidies. I’m sure if the poor didn’t have such a strong voice in the political process it would happen more often.