More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Income (over $200K) voters
Last answered 6 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Income (over $200K) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Aug 18, 2012. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Income data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
8 years ago by indiatimes.com
8 years ago by net.au
8 years ago by youtube.com
9 years ago by politicalears.com
10 years ago by youtube.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
No, because I think it should be privatized. 9 years ago from a Republican in Nashua, NH
No, and they shouldn't be government property in the first place. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Annapolis, MD
Yes, but the funding should from the community of citizens. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Dover, NJ
Yes they should be preserved but should be public land. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Incline Village, NV
Yes, but work with the states to determine how to use the land. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Norman, OK
Yes, but allow limited logging, drilling and mining to help bring in more federal and private income, and allow more recreational opportunities to help increase the recreation economy as well. 9 years ago from a Republican in Saginaw, MO
Yes, but allow more public access using some of the infrastructure already built for logging, etc if not in a sensitive area and allow use\sale of the resources in a smart and safe manner and increase the royalty fees. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Ridgefield, WA
Give it back to the people who had it first and create an enviormental constitution that protects all national forests parks monuments historical sites ect. ect. ect. logging and the destruction of our enviornment is the problem stopping it is the solution. 9 years ago from a Green in Newcastle, OK
Sell the land to private owners on the condition that they keep the Parks for their previously intended purpose as a preserved land and a tourist attraction. The new owners can hire staff to work at and maintain the Parks. Creates jobs and saves the... 9 years ago from a Democrat in Framingham, MA
Long-term agreements should be available to local and state governments as well as certain corporate entities as ANYONE manages more efficiently than the Feds. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Kent, WA
Yes, but the concessionaire/vendor rights, etc. which have been bought by other countries, mainly Japan, should be bought back/controlled by the US gov't/. 9 years ago from a Green in Elmira, CA
Allow the Indigenous peoples in a given area decide through consensus how the land should be treated. 9 years ago from a Green in Tempe, AZ