The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

THW give extra votes to the poor.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,715 times Debate No: 35949
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




The poor deserve it. Not for just the fact that they are poor, but that they know the circumstances of an area better than the "wealthier" people do. They will give the government "goals" to achieve with the poor.The opposition might state that just because they are poor, doesn't mean that they should be treated any better than the average income or educated person, nor should that person be treated better than the poor.True, but at least they are able to survive when the prices go up or when inflation emerges, these people cannot cope, not even with the current prices. They are often the ones that get promised the services, yet nothing is come to them. If they were able to vote for the party they think and are convinced- will bring them what they need. Then they should be able to. We will allow not a specific amount, but are working on an amount ranging from 2 to 4.


There's one problem for poor people. They don't have enough money.
Money plays a big role. From politics to survival, its essential for everyone to own money.

Ladies gentlemen, poor people should vote. Its called being a responsible citizen. But they shouldn't be given extra votes. Because extra votes from the poor might overshadow normal votes therefore making election farcical.

But the main point here is, they just don't have time to care about politics.
Many of the poor in the United States are women and children with little education, discretionary income or exposure to political information. These groups inhabit urban inner cities or rural communities. They are more likely to work a job in the service or manufacturing sectors, and often hold several posts to make ends meet. Time-savers that many take for granted, such as owning a car or having access to cash, are harder for the poor.

Public transportation is inefficient, and many must wait on long lines to receive poverty benefits such as food stamps. There's little time to be involved in the political process.

Politics is usually ruled by wealthy people, corporations, etc etc.

I'm not saying that poor people can't option to get involved. But imagine being in their feet, The poor feel disenfranchised, underrepresented and powerless in the face of this asset gap, and option to stay out of the system by not voting. Ones that actually does have interest in politics are like 1 out of 500 poor people. Not to mention the low education rate for them to actually understand their leaders.

Ask yourself ladies and gentlemen, the poor CAN vote and CAN get involved. But should they? That is the question.
Debate Round No. 1


I think our views are completely different here, obviously. I live in South Africa, a place full of unemployment, poverty, should i go on ? I think we can all agree that the poor can vote, and they should.Why shouldn't a person's thoughts be taken into account? Just because he is poor!Yes the wealthier pay the taxes, but if the government were to win the hearts of the poor, provide them with the promises they promised, they'd receive more tax because more people employed. This will improve a country's infrastructure and when the poor pay taxes, the gov has a reason to care and need them.

The poor are easy to manipulate when it comes to party elections. They know what is going on in the "real" world. Sure an educated person will have knowledge of the world, but wont know how bad people really have it as they-most likely- would have not been exposed to those ares. Areas that need the gov's attention !You need education to vote,yes, but knowing your surroundings and what works for people who are in the same circumstances are enough.

I have mentioned before, that they are easy to manipulate, but i correct myself by saying that they are not that easily manipulated. They will have knowledge of what the running parties are for and what they are willing to give and the y would know if a previous party is worth voting for or not, because i'm pretty sure they would be able to tell if their poor circumstances have changed.

The poor are best source of reinforcing votes,but if you don't, they do know how to fight back.If they were to gain extra votes for the party they wanted,it brings them up.

The poor require extra votes to be represented fairly!So why hold it back from them?They know enough to vote, they too are people. We all preach and praise-EQUALITY-yet here we are, restricting normal from their rights! The poor should vote, no doubt about it !


I will suit my points to yours for better understanding then. You make good points.

I did not say that poor can't vote, as I stated in my previous argument, I actually encourage them to vote, but the reality is, they don't even know what's going on in the country. Their stuck at that current state of poverty.

Just a fact I would throw in,
The conventional wisdom that Africa is not reducing poverty is wrong. Researchers estimate income distributions, poverty rates, and inequality and welfare indices for African countries for the period 1970-2006. They have shown that: (1) African poverty is falling and is falling rapidly; (2) if present trends continue, the poverty Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people with incomes less than one dollar a day will be achieved on time.

The African government ARE doing their best to help the state of poverty now, but the sad truth is, they don't have enough asset to do so. To gain more asset, they main on improving the developing countries in the African Continent.

One of their most developing countries are Lybia, and ladies and gentleman, majority of parts in Lybia doesn't even have electricity!

But the question is now, how does political views and such spread? By the media. Television is a major part in media. But as we know, the current states in Africa, the closest thing would be newspaper.

Newspapers are given mostly ONLY in the developing countries. They pay taxes. They vote.
But let's take a look at the rural areas where poverty is undergoing in Africa. As I stated before, the education rate there is VERY low.

For them to get informed in politics, they need, at the very least, to know their leaders and what they can do for them. BUT!! Ladies and gentlemen, how are they going to be informed, if they can't even read? And as I stated. Their main source of information is the newspapers. And its majorly given to city areas ONLY. Even if they got hands to them anyway, they wouldn't be able to read them.

And lets try to be realistic here, they were raised to not give any reason to care about politics. They are barely even holding up from starvation sadly. As I write this , imagine how many of them have already died. They simply don't have time, or the use of optioning inside politics as MOST of them are barely holding onto their lives.

Its not the problem that they should or shouldn't vote. Its the matter of knowing who to vote for, and in this case, they barely even know what their government is up to!

To summarize my points : Its better not to vote, than voting blindly, since the technology and education rate is just too low to be informative.

I hope this creates a better argument for you. Till then, I rest my case once again.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Zalhala 3 years ago
Were doing this debate against another school on Monday, so all this feedback is really helpful THANX U GUYS !! Debation <3 ( debate + nation ) :) !!!!
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Is this a troll debate?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This borders on a fail debate... However overall I'd say pro presented a stronger case in favor of the resolution, whereas con sidetracked the whole thing by making an argument that the poor should not vote at all; which would be worthy of it's own debate (be sure to include Tracy Morgan's "Don't Vote" video), but in this one points advanced toward it are useless.
Vote Placed by HostileBelief 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is horrible. Nanami is absolutely terrible in debating politics and says it herself that she doesn't care much for it, hence why do I even care about her opinion. Even though I do think that the poor should not be given extra votes, I fail to see both valid arguments from both sides.