Voting Privileges System Needed

[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, intrusive 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.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

Please, Little Acorn, give us something to work with.

The principles you expound in the cave don't work today.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

You really need to learn how to be more succinct. You could have said all that with one sentence: "I don't want poor people voting."

Ok, I don't want poor people voting.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Irony.

We all know it when we see it.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

That is, after all, what most pissed us off about King George.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

That is, after all, what most pissed us off about King George.

People who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And liberals continuously fail to learn from history.

 

[hortysir]

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.

Local governments can govern just fine.
Problem is that they are never happy to just govern

 

[Little-Acorn]

Local governments can govern just fine.
Problem is that they are never happy to just govern

Which is why they MUST have the people they propose to govern, watching over them and voting on them, with the power to kick them out if needed.

Contrary to what the OP is requesting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You loony tunies are a singing along. I will you libertarians to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

How about the CEO who sits in a comfy chair all day barking out orders gets one vote,

and the lady who has to clean his toilet and all the rest in the building for 10 bucks an hour gets 1000 votes?

 

[boilermaker55]

To make you piss all over yourself, all you need to hear or see are the words. President Barrack Obama.

I guess I shouldn't be....but I'm still amazed at how easy it is to pull liberals chains with a straw premise and get their jeans all urine stained!

 

[Truth2Know]

yes, but is it an absolute right?[/QUOTE]

No, voting is not an absolute right. Giving one vote to each citizen upon reaching a certain age is merely a philosophy.

A better philosophy is to give voting privileges only to those contributing to the financial needs of the country. This proposal gives a maximum of 1 vote to those paying millions in taxes. At the other extreme, if only $1 is paid in taxes, the person receives 0.1 vote. This is more than fair.

If a person is too poor to pay any income tax, or so rich he/she can shield income so no tax is paid, he/she doesn’t deserve to vote.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

yes, but is it an absolute right?

No, voting is not an absolute right. Giving one vote to each citizen upon reaching a certain age is merely a philosophy.

A better philosophy is to give voting privileges only to those contributing to the financial needs of the country. This proposal gives a maximum of 1 vote to those paying millions in taxes. At the other extreme, if only $1 is paid in taxes, the person receives 0.1 vote. This is more than fair.

If a person is too poor to pay any income tax, or so rich he/she can shield income so no tax is paid, he/she doesn’t deserve to vote.[/QUOTE]

No right is absolute, including the fundamental right to vote; and like all rights the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Your mistake, of course, is that the 'restrictions' you advocate are in no way 'reasonable' or 'warranted.' Indeed, you make the mistake of not acknowledging the fact that voting is a fundamental right.

Consequently, the notion of limiting voting rights only to those who own property or pay a certain amount in taxes is repugnant to the fundamental tenets of our representative democracy, and clearly un-Constitutional.

 

[Truth2Know]

Voting is a fundamental right – if you have skin in the game. Company stock holders have skin in the game; 1 share equals 1 vote. Reasonable, right?

The proposed metric for government office voting “skin in the game” is the amount paid in income and social insurance taxes. If these taxes are paid, this indicates the person is working and probably contributing something to society.

In this example, paying taxes that amount to only 50% of what each adult would pay if the tax load was equally shared meets the target to get the maximum one vote. Not reasonable enough? Make it 30% of the equal tax load. Pick the right percentage; it just needs to be something ‘reasonable.’ Those paying less than target still get a portion of a vote that is greater in value than their yearly contribution.

Is it ‘warranted’ to change the voting model? Maybe. It depends on how close we are to the situation Mr. Franklin foresaw:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

By the time this point is reached (if we aren’t past it already), it will be too late.

Is this voting system proposal un-Constitutional? Of course. That’s the purpose of amendments.