I've been considering running for an office, at some point, as a conservative "little r republican" (Mike Church reference). In doing so, I have some thoughts regarding the interpretation of the DOI/Constitution when it comes to votes and the weight of each man's vote. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and that each has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution clearly seeks to limit the size and power of government over the people. That being said, the question is whether those who are currently (or some measure of duration) on social subsistance from the government should have an equal weight in casting a vote as the person who is currently able to not lean on the government for help. A similar condition might be imposed on prisoners and those with no work experience. This is not the 3/5ths law imposed on black men. It is not racial. It seeks to give more weight to those who currently bear the economic burden. It would not seek to give more weight to those making more money - that is not the purpose. Would you support this or some variation of this concept?
I would like to add a little story... I once took a course on Gerontology and as part of the course it was my task to go out and interview some senior citizens to get their perspective on things. I interviewed a man named John. To keep this short, John grew up during a time when there was either no social support and then when social support became an option, but carried a stigma. John was going to school and his father became ill. John left school and took a job delivering milk to help support his family. I don't believe John was happy with needing to leave school, but from an early age he became aware of sacrifice and supporting your family. Now, I'm not saying that we should not have progressed to find ways to help people who are truly in need. I am saying that, like John giving up something to take a job and support his family - so too should those who are willing to have their fellow citizens support them be willing to give up something until such time as they are able to regain their footing. There is something about John's story and the stories of many others during that time that resonates with me. It is this "I can do this myself" pride driven mentality that is the mark of great citizens. It is the choice to swallow your pride to take social subsistance. There is nothing wrong in needing some help from time-to-time, we have all needed the help of someone or someones, but to approach it with the right mentality is key.
It strikes me as a terrible idea with no clear advantages at all. Determining what kind of persons vote should be weighted more would be highly controversial and however you did it would inevitably disenfranchise a whole load of good, intelligent people and give greater weight to many bad ones. There would be unintended consequences, indirectly disenfranchising whole groups or areas, subsequently giving them even less influence on government and zero attention from politicians. This could ultimately lead to even more imbalance in power, focusing it even more on a small group as it is already.
Are you opposed to people on the dole voting in liberals who will give them more? What next? No dead people voting? I personally think dead people, deadbeats, and the developmentally disabled should be able to sign a proxy for their vote to ACORN.
The only way I would support it is if I could pick how the votes were weighted, I think that most people would agree with this for themselves respectively.
We don't pander to the minorites. If people have a common concern then they unite and try to find a politican to stand what they want.
You're confusing "burden" with "amount". The richest people pay the largest amount of taxes, but the burden of that amount on them is the smallest. If you make 4 million, the current tax burden will leave you with 3 million. If you make 40K, you will be left with 30K. So, using the term burden correctly, you are proposing that those who pay the least taxes should get more say.
Honest Joe, I can see your point, but the idea of making everyone happy really isn't working anymore. We have a certain political party who counts of people are looking for someone to take care of them or who want to blame others for their economic position. I would tax up tax reform in a separate thread. Our current system, does not provide those who "contribute" a greater say than those who do not contribute. I'm not talking about wealth, I'm talking about gainful employment, not counting on the system to care for you. Outside of those retirees who have worked long and hard years previously to now be in a position to retire. The people who actually pay taxes in the U.S. are disenchanted with how the system's burden is continually being placed on their shoulders. Our founding fathers did not intend for people who want support (not need) to have a say in the shaping of our country. Those people would have parished in 1776. I realize what I'm saying may not be palatable, but the alternative is to eventually crumble under the weight of the system and all become wards of it...or is that the plan?
krunkskimo... The key word is "created". God creates them equal and they either learn to either earn or expect. So, if you are asking if I think the "earners" should be represented unequally to those who "expect", I do believe there is merit to this. Of course, with refinement.
Please explain your rational? This is not the same as the 3/5 compromise. In fact, it follows more closely what Martin Luther King had envisioned...judging a man by his character as opposed to the color of his skin.
I'd like to see your figures on the number of people getting support who are only doing so because they want to but have no need.
This involves a value judgment about a person based on his temporary employment condition. I don't think MLK would approve.
It's exactly the same as the 3/5 compromise. While you seem to naively think that such a "weighting" would be objective, I think that our history shows that it would be far from it.
Partisan rubbish. Both of your major political parties (like all of ours) are as bad as each other one way or another. Being employed doesn't automatically equal a positive contribution to society and vice-versa. Housewives/mothers are the classic example but it goes much deeper than that. Even if you have a legitimate argument for giving the "contributors" a greater say, there is no way you could effectively define and identify them. They struggle enough establishing accurate electoral registers as it is. So people like moaning - that's nothing new? Taxpayers already the majority though, so if this was truly the opinion of those people, they have the potential to voice it. The fact is that most of them are too lazy and rely on others to make the stand (too lazy, relying on others - that sounds familiar doesn't it?). Your founding fathers certainly didn't want the poor and commoners to have power because that would mean they lost it. They were generally no better than the politicians today. By all means propose a dictatorship of the rich and powerful but at least be open and honest about it.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin The federal welfare state is unconstitutional in itself, so it should be abolished rather than excluding those who are on welfare from voting.
Generations of people who are raised with support and subsequently expect support ultimately are deemed as needing support. People who find themselves in a position of need, are those who have tried to avoid need but by no fault of their own find themselves in a circumstance that requires assistance. These are people whose neighbors would have come to their aid in the past. Why? Because they did not demonstrate a pattern of needing.
This is an idea in its early stages and your thoughts will help to shape its viability. Implementing this alone does not solve all the problems. You are correct that having politicians in office who care more about their donors than the will of the people is problem for which we need a remedy. What is does accomplish, in my opinion, is put the weight of the vote into the hands of people who feel the sting of taxes. Those people who are footing the bill will generally take a more conservative stance on spending and the size and role of government. That is a solution amongst a number that need to be implemented. I'm not looking to side with one party, I'm appealing to all those people who each month have the government's insatiable appetite to feed. They exist in all parties.
How would these people be identified though? I though it wasn't about money but about wider contribution to society. So you've decided that is a good thing and want to fix the electoral system to make it happen by disenfranchising anyone who disagrees?
Right. And the concern is "Power" and "Absolute Power". Liberals cater to anyone who will vote for them...until after the election. Then, the ones who voted for them get screwed with everyone else.
What kind of idiot believes in created equal. For starters, some are born healthy, some unhealthy. Some are born ugly and some beautiful. Some smart and some stupid. And beyond that, some who are born smart are taught to be stupid. No, life's not fair. As my granddaddy told me, "You play the cards you're dealt, son, you don't get to stack the deck." Of course, liberals do want to stack the deck.
