Payment to Not Vote?

[Cassandro]

As we all know, half of the electorate are of below average knowledge and intelligence. As a result, they dilute and degrade the concept of voting by an informed citizenry.

One way to address this problem is a voting test which would require correct identification of the President, Vice President, and Governor of their state. However, this might cause some people to fear we were returning to Jim Crow laws after the Civil War.

A better way might be to offer people some amount of money not to vote. I'm thinking $20 might be enough to lure away the riff-raff. What do you think?

 

[TNHarley]

voting by an informed citizenry.

LOL that doesnt happen in America. Our voting block is a huge majority of ******* morons who dont their own ass from a hole in the ground.
"informed" LMAO

 

[JGalt]

As we all know, half of the electorate are of below average knowledge and intelligence. As a result, they dilute and degrade the exercise of voting by an informed citizenry.

One way to address this problem is a voting test which would require correct identification of the President, Vice President, and Governor of their state. However, this might cause some people to fear we were returning to Jim Crow laws after the Civil War.

A better way might be to offer people some amount of money not to vote. I'm thinking $20 might be enough to lure away the riff-raff. What do you think?

You might be on to something here. I do know a certain percent of the electorate would gladly trade their vote for a carton of Newport Menthol 100s and a bottle of Hennessy.

 

[Cassandro]

Maybe $50? I would gladly contribute that amount.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

As we all know, half of the electorate are of below average knowledge and intelligence.

It's far more than half.

 

[1srelluc]

If we went back to only male landowners can vote we would be far better off.

Far too many voters who have no skin in the game that are determining outcomes.

 

[Stryder50]

As we all know, half of the electorate are of below average knowledge and intelligence. As a result, they dilute and degrade the concept of voting by an informed citizenry.

One way to address this problem is a voting test which would require correct identification of the President, Vice President, and Governor of their state. However, this might cause some people to fear we were returning to Jim Crow laws after the Civil War.

A better way might be to offer people some amount of money not to vote. I'm thinking $20 might be enough to lure away the riff-raff. What do you think?

In my state about half those who could vote, don't. That alone should help reduce the "dilute and degrade". On top of, we have "mail-in" voting (making it too easy) so no getting off your arse and out the door to a polling station.

It's been my experience that many to most who do vote, are informed, but still divide into opposites on most issues and candidates.
FWIW, I've noticed many voters, who are informed and do vote, tend to be as informed if not more so than the candidates they have to select from.

If any sort of testing or qualification to be considered and applied, I'd suggest the method of passing the civics test used in the process for citizenship, via INS.

Guv'mint already throws out too much money for frivolous purpose, we don't need any more of such. Unless it is to tighten voting credibility, check on citizenship and only one vote per living citizen.

Remember, I think it's Stalin oft credited with this;
"It doesn't matter who the people vote for, what matters is who counts the ballots."

 

[Stryder50]

If we went back to only male landowners can vote we would be far better off.

Far too many voters who have no skin in the game that are determining outcomes.

Renters are helping the owners pay so they should qualify.
Also the real estate market in most locales is increasingly hard to make starter purchases for many who want to.

 

[JGalt]

If we went back to only male landowners can vote we would be far better off.

Far too many voters who have no skin in the game that are determining outcomes.

I'm all for giving the unwashed masses a single vote, but male and female landowner's votes should be counted twice.

 

[1srelluc]

I'm all for giving the unwashed masses a single vote, but male and female landowner's votes should be counted twice.

How about a half vote for city dwellers.

No way should a metro area determine laws for the rest of a state.

 

[Stryder50]

I'm all for giving the unwashed masses a single vote, but male and female landowner's votes should be counted twice.

Why just twice?
Why not based on amount of land owned?
Should a home owner with a 1/4 acre lot have same vote power as a farmer with 500 acres ?

 

[Stryder50]

I'm all for giving the unwashed masses a single vote, but male and female landowner's votes should be counted twice.

Why not a system pro-rated on amount of taxes paid by that voter ?

 

[1srelluc]

Why just twice?
Why not based on amount of land owned?
Should a home owner with a 1/4 acre lot have same vote power as a farmer with 500 acres ?

Single family home OWNERSHIP would count....You own the patch it sits on. Renters and condo dwellers can pound sand.

Not sure about townhomes.

 

[Darkwind]

As we all know, half of the electorate are of below average knowledge and intelligence. As a result, they dilute and degrade the concept of voting by an informed citizenry.

One way to address this problem is a voting test which would require correct identification of the President, Vice President, and Governor of their state. However, this might cause some people to fear we were returning to Jim Crow laws after the Civil War.

A better way might be to offer people some amount of money not to vote. I'm thinking $20 might be enough to lure away the riff-raff. What do you think?

Well, I think that is a crime.

 

[Stryder50]

Single family home OWNERSHIP would count....You own the patch it sits on. Renters and condo dwellers can pound sand.

Not sure about townhomes.

Condo usually have equity ownership.
Renters impacted and pay the property tax.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's far more than half.

Come now, I don't think this forum is an adequate & accurate sample representation of the population.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why not based on amount of land owned?

Land consolidation under mega-billionaires would increase, pricing most Americans out of the market if things were run that way.


. . . not a whole lot different than the system we have now.

 

[TNHarley]

Land consolidation under mega-billionaires would increase, pricing most Americans out of the market if things were run that way.


. . . not a whole lot different than the system we have now.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-13/la-rams-owner-stan-kroenke-is-america-s-biggest-landowner

2.7m acres

 

[OODA_Loop]

Free weed not to vote.

 

[1srelluc]

Condo usually have equity ownership.
Renters impacted and pay the property tax.

Hey, I'm making the rules here.