pt-king
Wow...this guy has truly bought into the smoke and mirrors and is clueless about what is really happening. Another great reason why only land owners should vote.

No Don, I meant landowners. Generally if you are smart enough to save up and buy land you are smart enough to vote.
We are fully cognizant of the Founding Father's fear of the rabble as well as what at the time could be construed as sound reasons to limit the franchise to the landed.
We are also cognizant of the current conservative discourse on the folly of universal suffrage. In September, John Derbyshire, for instance, told Alan Colmes that he wouldn't lose any sleep if women were disenfranchised since they "want someone to help raise their kids, and if men aren’t inclined to do it — and in the present days, they’re not much — then they’d like the state to do it for them.” (Ann Coulter agrees with Derb. Take away women's vote and the Democratic Party folds).
This was too much even for mainstream disenfranchisers who responded that women in this day and age actually own property in their own name and run their own businesses; therefore are worthy of a place at the table. Disenfranchisement fan Chris Wysoki, draws the line at gender (and race) restriction, but argues that voting should be proportionate to the amount of taxes one pays. That is, the more taxes one pays, the more political clout he or she should have.
No one asks who Madison and Mason would consider the rabble today: rent seekers or Wall Street golden paratroopers.
Well, whatever.
With the enactment of universal manhood suffrage, the 17th Amendment, and woman suffrage, it's been under the bridge for decades. It's unlikely that Americans, outside of Ann Coulter, would vote to take their own vote away.
pt-king, Village Idiot of the Day, October 27, 2009