Voting Privileges System Needed

[martybegan]

The one-person, one-vote philosophy used in America needs to be changed. The functions performed by elected officials are too important to entrust candidate selection to people on the sole basis they are citizens of a certain age. This simplistic voting condition causes pandering to buy voter support. An earned voting privilege system needs to be implemented before those only taking from the government, and the candidates they support, damage America more than they already have.

Let’s use a criterion similar to what companies use to determine eligible voters for company issues. If you own one share of stock in a company, you get one vote. Those with more money invested in a company get more votes. This is straight forward and equitable.

For political office voting, the metric corresponding to owning stock shares in a company is the amount “contributed” to government operations, i.e. taxes. The more you pay in taxes, the more heavily weighted your vote should be.

Because the top 1% of earners pay about 35% of all income taxes and the top 5% pay about 57%, it is unrealistic to think that a direct correlation to a company’s “one share, one vote” method could, or even should, be attempted. It would be unwise to give so much voting power to so few, even though they are graciously funding most of our country’s operations.

One approach is to use a combination of Federal income and social insurance taxes paid when setting a voting threshold. The threshold could be a percentage (50% is used for this example) of the average income and social insurance taxes paid. This would give voting privileges to people that are contributing at least something to our country’s operation. Here are some calculations that show what an “average” tax amount looks like: Who pays their fair share of Federal taxes US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

In this proposal, people paying taxes at or above threshold receive one vote. For example, those paying 50% of the average income and social insurance taxes, all the way up to the highest tax payer, get one vote. Those paying less than threshold receive a proportionate fraction of a vote, rounded up to the nearest tenth of a vote. Pay 48.2% of threshold, get 0.5 of a vote; pay only $1 in taxes, get 0.1 of a vote. Pay nothing (or less) in Federal income tax or social insurance tax, no vote for you. Filing jointly? Just divide the total taxes paid by two to determine how each person compares to threshold.

Is it fair to have adult citizens living in the United States and not allow them vote because they are not financially supporting the country? Yes. Even though they can’t vote, they still receive the benefits of living in this country. It is like non-stock holding customers of an electric company. They enjoy electricity generated by the company (if their bills are paid), but have no say in how the company is run. They should be happy their lights are on. If people pay nothing in taxes but want to vote, they know what to do.

If stock shares can be voted online and taxes paid online, the technology is available to implement this political office voting system. As a bonus, think how convenient it would be to vote online. Let’s make this change before it is too late.

Voting is a fundamental right, safeguarded by the Constitution from attack by you and others motivated by fear, ignorance, and hate.

Here are the only federal limits on what qualifiers are for voting:

• [*]"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)
  [*]"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)
  [*]In Washington, D.C., presidential elections (23rd Amendment, 1961)
  [*](For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)
  

  • (For state elections) Taxes - (14th Amendment; Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966))

  [*]"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).
  [*]Requirement that a person reside in a jurisdiction for an extended period of time (14th Amendment; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972))[6][7][7]

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[hortysir]

Good to see bipartisan agreement that the OP is nucking futs

 

[Little-Acorn]

The one-person, one-vote philosophy used in America needs to be changed. The functions performed by elected officials are too important to entrust candidate selection to people on the sole basis they are citizens of a certain age. This simplistic voting condition causes pandering

The problem is not that some voters are stupid, or lazy, or even corrupt. (Even though some of them are.)

The problem is that government is doing far too much, getting way too huge, and needs vastly more oversight than it can expect to get.

Govt was designed to be relatively small and unobtrusive, doing things that private people or groups COULD NOT do. As such, it didn't need a lot of oversight by its bosses (the people).

But in the last hundred years, it's swollen hugely, reaching into the innermost details of everyone's private lives. So it requires vastly more oversight than it should have needed. To run such a huge, inntrusive government right, people would have to pay more attention to it, than to their own private lives.

The answer isn't to keep government huge, and turn more and more of it over to unaccountable bureaucrats while cutting out voters.

The solution is to reduce government back to what it should be, so that the small amount of attention people pay to it is the right amount. And make sure that every law-abiding adult citizen can vote.

Why am I not surprised that the people who want bigger and bigger government, are now demanding that fewer people should vote or have any say in how it's run? This is the course EVERY dictatorship takes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your points are well taken, Little Acorn, if we were living in 1789.

 

[Darkwind]

The one-person, one-vote philosophy used in America needs to be changed. The functions performed by elected officials are too important to entrust candidate selection to people on the sole basis they are citizens of a certain age. This simplistic voting condition causes pandering to buy voter support. An earned voting privilege system needs to be implemented before those only taking from the government, and the candidates they support, damage America more than they already have.

Let’s use a criterion similar to what companies use to determine eligible voters for company issues. If you own one share of stock in a company, you get one vote. Those with more money invested in a company get more votes. This is straight forward and equitable.

For political office voting, the metric corresponding to owning stock shares in a company is the amount “contributed” to government operations, i.e. taxes. The more you pay in taxes, the more heavily weighted your vote should be.

Because the top 1% of earners pay about 35% of all income taxes and the top 5% pay about 57%, it is unrealistic to think that a direct correlation to a company’s “one share, one vote” method could, or even should, be attempted. It would be unwise to give so much voting power to so few, even though they are graciously funding most of our country’s operations.

One approach is to use a combination of Federal income and social insurance taxes paid when setting a voting threshold. The threshold could be a percentage (50% is used for this example) of the average income and social insurance taxes paid. This would give voting privileges to people that are contributing at least something to our country’s operation. Here are some calculations that show what an “average” tax amount looks like: Who pays their fair share of Federal taxes US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

In this proposal, people paying taxes at or above threshold receive one vote. For example, those paying 50% of the average income and social insurance taxes, all the way up to the highest tax payer, get one vote. Those paying less than threshold receive a proportionate fraction of a vote, rounded up to the nearest tenth of a vote. Pay 48.2% of threshold, get 0.5 of a vote; pay only $1 in taxes, get 0.1 of a vote. Pay nothing (or less) in Federal income tax or social insurance tax, no vote for you. Filing jointly? Just divide the total taxes paid by two to determine how each person compares to threshold.

Is it fair to have adult citizens living in the United States and not allow them vote because they are not financially supporting the country? Yes. Even though they can’t vote, they still receive the benefits of living in this country. It is like non-stock holding customers of an electric company. They enjoy electricity generated by the company (if their bills are paid), but have no say in how the company is run. They should be happy their lights are on. If people pay nothing in taxes but want to vote, they know what to do.

If stock shares can be voted online and taxes paid online, the technology is available to implement this political office voting system. As a bonus, think how convenient it would be to vote online. Let’s make this change before it is too late.

Voting is a fundamental right, safeguarded by the Constitution from attack by you and others motivated by fear, ignorance, and hate.

yes, but is it an absolute right?

 

[Anathema]

Voting is a Right not a Privelage........

Which just happens to be one of the biggest problems with the American system of Government. This is part of the larger "Too many Rights not enough Duties/Responsibilities" problem with has been hampering this nation for decades now.

 

[hortysir]

The one-person, one-vote philosophy used in America needs to be changed. The functions performed by elected officials are too important to entrust candidate selection to people on the sole basis they are citizens of a certain age. This simplistic voting condition causes pandering to buy voter support. An earned voting privilege system needs to be implemented before those only taking from the government, and the candidates they support, damage America more than they already have.

Let’s use a criterion similar to what companies use to determine eligible voters for company issues. If you own one share of stock in a company, you get one vote. Those with more money invested in a company get more votes. This is straight forward and equitable.

For political office voting, the metric corresponding to owning stock shares in a company is the amount “contributed” to government operations, i.e. taxes. The more you pay in taxes, the more heavily weighted your vote should be.

Because the top 1% of earners pay about 35% of all income taxes and the top 5% pay about 57%, it is unrealistic to think that a direct correlation to a company’s “one share, one vote” method could, or even should, be attempted. It would be unwise to give so much voting power to so few, even though they are graciously funding most of our country’s operations.

One approach is to use a combination of Federal income and social insurance taxes paid when setting a voting threshold. The threshold could be a percentage (50% is used for this example) of the average income and social insurance taxes paid. This would give voting privileges to people that are contributing at least something to our country’s operation. Here are some calculations that show what an “average” tax amount looks like: Who pays their fair share of Federal taxes US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum.

In this proposal, people paying taxes at or above threshold receive one vote. For example, those paying 50% of the average income and social insurance taxes, all the way up to the highest tax payer, get one vote. Those paying less than threshold receive a proportionate fraction of a vote, rounded up to the nearest tenth of a vote. Pay 48.2% of threshold, get 0.5 of a vote; pay only $1 in taxes, get 0.1 of a vote. Pay nothing (or less) in Federal income tax or social insurance tax, no vote for you. Filing jointly? Just divide the total taxes paid by two to determine how each person compares to threshold.

Is it fair to have adult citizens living in the United States and not allow them vote because they are not financially supporting the country? Yes. Even though they can’t vote, they still receive the benefits of living in this country. It is like non-stock holding customers of an electric company. They enjoy electricity generated by the company (if their bills are paid), but have no say in how the company is run. They should be happy their lights are on. If people pay nothing in taxes but want to vote, they know what to do.

If stock shares can be voted online and taxes paid online, the technology is available to implement this political office voting system. As a bonus, think how convenient it would be to vote online. Let’s make this change before it is too late.

Voting is a fundamental right, safeguarded by the Constitution from attack by you and others motivated by fear, ignorance, and hate.

yes, but is it an absolute right?

Pointless

The same people that scream when they're expected to spend a dollar for an ID to vote because it's a poll tax are more than happy to charge you for a background check for a gun

 

[Two Thumbs]

start programs that require you to earn a right and you take the first step down many of those paths.

no one should vote unless they have served in the military
no one should vote unless they own property
no one should vote unless they have a college degree

any and all of those can find support

 

[PaintMyHouse]

start programs that require you to earn a right and you take the first step down many of those paths.

no one should vote unless they have served in the military
no one should vote unless they own property
no one should vote unless they have a college degree

any and all of those can find support

Well, among other problems, being entirely undemocratic and un-American for starters, is the fact that we are only supposed to have a military during times of war, which leaves your position totally fucked from the get-go.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Your points are well taken, Little Acorn, if we were living in 1789.

They're well taken regardless of what the calendar says. Humans have not changed significantly since 1789, and neither have their needs, their desires, or their nature.

People have never paid much attention to government, not now or hundred (or thousand) years ago. And the desire of some humans to reach out and control others, also hasn't changed. Inventing the wheel, the farm, the rifle, the light bulb, the automobile, and Twitter haven't changed what humans are, or what they want and need.

Big government is not suitable to human nature, and causes far more problems than it solves. True for cave men, true for Julius Caesar's citizens, true for George Washington's citizens, true for V.I Lenin's subjects, and true today.

Creating even bigger government to control the big govt we already have (as the OP proposes here), is the opposite of a "solution". It's more like drilling holes in the bottom of a boat to let the water out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, twothumbs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your points are well taken, Little Acorn, if we were living in 1789.

They are well taken regardless of what the calendar says. Humans have not changed significantly since 1789, and neither have their needs, their desires, or their nature.

People have never paid much attention to government, not now or hundred (or thousand) years ago. And the desire of some humans to reach out and control others, also hasn't changed. Inventing the wheel, the farm, the rifle, the light bulb, the automobile, and Twitter haven't changed what humans are, or what the want and need.

Big government is not suitable to human nature, and causes far more problems than it solves. True for cave men, true for Julius Caesar's citizens, true for George Washington's citizens, true for V.I. Lenin's subjects, and true today.

We will have to learn because we live in times that small, local government cannot handle governing. No, your implication that libertarian government can govern cavemen to modern society is false.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We will have to learn because we live in times that small, local government cannot handle governing. No, your implication that libertarian government can govern cavemen to modern society is false.

That's what liberals always say: As soon as human nature changes, our government will work just fine.

They've been saying that for thousands of years in one form or another... and creating disaster after disaster without end. And without ever noticing that THEY are the ones who are wrong.

I suggest that it's big-government pushers who need to learn.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that is what common sense, which liberals to conservative, possess in great fold compared to libertarians.

Libertarians never learn that others simply won't accept libertarian failed ways.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, I never mentioned "libertarian government", whatever that is. I mentioned small government that does only what private people or groups cannot do (and that's pretty small).

We will always have imperfect societies as long as humans are imperfect (i.e. as long as human nature doesn't change). Screwups are inevitable.

Our only choice, is whether those screwups are to be cast in stone and imposed upon us by millions of (imperfect) people in a crushing Big Government we can't control, or by ourselves and our neighbors who will hurt themselves by their own screwups and so have impetus to change (and no restriction on their changes imposed by Big Govt).

Human nature is vastly more suited to the latter. Imperfect though it is and always will be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your form of libertarianism is called post-constitutional, that government can only do what small groups can't. That alone pulls your house of cards apart.

But . . . go forth and try to get others to see it your way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, that is what common sense, which liberals to conservative, possess in great fold compared to libertarians.

Libertarians never learn that others simply won't accept libertarian failed ways.

Children very often reject what adults say, and libertarians are selfish infants, like Bripiss.

 

[SwimExpert]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

-The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

 

[Little-Acorn]

Your form of libertarianism

What's that?

is called post-constitutional,

What's that?

that government can only do what small groups can't.

Who said that?

I said that government can't do it very well either... but that private individuals are groups do it even worse (a rare circumstance), government should be the one doing it. And the people it's doing it to, should be in overall control, however remotely.

That alone pulls your house of cards apart.

You offer no evidence of that. Probably because it isn't so. But go ahead and try to get others to see it your way.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The one-person, one-vote philosophy used in America needs to be changed. The functions performed by elected officials are too important to entrust candidate selection to people on the sole basis they are citizens of a certain age. This simplistic voting condition causes pandering

A "voting privileges system" that bans more and more people affected by government, from voting, is the last thing we need.