I think someone should have to provide proof of property ownership to be able to vote
If I’m not mistaken that has been proposed at one time or another and I agree with it
A person voting that has no skin in the game can vote to live on our tax dollars for generations….oh wait that’s already happening
I can't agree with either of you on this one. I do understand your thought on this and it does sound good on the surface but, a young married couple who is having to rent an apartment or house to start out would be denied the right to vote if this were the case.
The point being made is that people would vote more sensibly if they had skin in the game instead of voting for programs that require more of our tax dollars for their benefit keeping them in the same cycle of dependency and property ownership requirement is one of the few things that can prevent US from paying for a lifetime supply of ho-ho cakes
Thus being the reason I included the statement, "I do understand your thought on this and it does sound good on the surface", in my response.
The point I'm making is this would be totally unconstitutional. My wife and I bought our first home at the age of 23 so by that standard, we would not have been eligible to vote until that age. We had an entire thread about how young people were not able to afford homes and the average first time homebuyer's age being significantly higher now. A lot of that has to do with inflation vs wage increase now. Look at how many decent thinking people that would vote the way you and I would you would be knocking out of the right to vote simply because they were trying to just get their feet under them.
Also, following the same logic of having skin in the game, it would perfect sense that those with more skin in the game should have more say in things. Therefore, the votes of the people who owned the most would carry more weight than say the vote of you and I. You're opening a whole other can of worms there.
