Welfare Recepients Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

First, I should like to address how in the United Kingdom people with children receive funding from the State simply for having children. I did not know this, and I also do not think this should count as economic welfare. From your rhetoric I understand that this applies to all people in Great Britain, and so this should not qualify as money given by the State for charitable reasons. Economic welfare, as I said in my argument, is aimed at providing financial support for those persons who are are not (or cannot) supporting themselves. If this is aide for having children is given to all persons in Britain who have children, then it is not support for those who cannot support themselves. Instead, it should be considered a payment for services rendered (as you say, they are rearing the next generation of citizens) and, although it may go by the name of welfare, or be handled by the same department which handles welfare, it should not be considered as such. It should instead be considered equivalent to payments given to all others who have rendered services to the government or society, no different than allowances given to veterans or stipends for retired public servants. It is very true that all parties, when seeking office, try to appeal to their respective voting base and those who would most benefit from their issues. As I said, people tend to vote for that which most benefits themselves. Of course not all individuals who are recipients of welfare are corrupt, or "criminals", but indeed there are some who are slothful and selfish. In the United States, for example, there are entire families who have been living on public assistance for generations. http://www.nationalreview.com... I do not try to paint all welfare recipients as such, I merely demonstrate that in fact, there are recipients who are this way. Now, as candidates and parties seeking to win elections will always appeal to the base most likely to vote for them, then this will betray the very values upon which all post-Revolutionary Era democracies are built upon. By advocating for increases in welfare, whether slight or substantial, those slothful and selfish members of any society, who actively seek out handouts, will of course vote in favor of these increases. Indeed, in theory they should be countered by those other welfare recipients who have simply fallen upon tough times and need the help of society. However, those persons who simply need help may be forced to vote for those advocating for increased welfare income, regardless of that candidate's other platforms. This depends upon the circumstances which they are in and, for many on welfare, their circumstances are never stable and good. Their votes are then purchased not because of their greed, but because of their dire need. So for example, if a candidate running for office runs on a platform of waging unnecessary wars, or has a previous record of trying to remove liberties from the people, this candidate can be sure of the greater portion of welfare voters votes simply by promising them an increase. Those poor individuals who vote out of necessity may very well despise the candidate they vote for, but to vote otherwise is to bring harm upon themselves. By not allowing the recipients of public assistance to vote, society prevents candidates from peddling expensive increases to them. These people will not be without welfare checks, for it is only a decadent and truly depraved society which would seek to prevent the charity of the welfare system. Such decadent societies, once they become so, do not last very long until they collapse. However, by allowing welfare recipients to vote, they will (as a collective bloc, not necessarily individually) swing towards whichever candidate promises them an increase, regardless of his/her other platforms.