I would like to thank everyone for their opinions to date. It would appear that people feel that overwhelmingly everyone deserves an equal opinion or weight of their vote regardless of whether you are feeding the system or feeding off of the system. Yes, that is what we hope for, everyone equal in contribution, understanding of policy and the constitution, love for their country, and appreciation for free enterprise. I simply do not think that is possible. Treating everyone as if we all held the same stake in our country has gotten us to the brink of it turning into something that is not the country we once knew. As a policy, this concept that I propose may not work well, as many here seem to believe, but maintaining the same course will lead us to disaster of greater proportion. A suggestion was made offline, to simply remove the teet from which the "expecters" feed. Unfortunately, to do that there would need to be many fewer "expecters" in order the pass the necessary legislation and I do not foresee that happening while on our current course. We are at a stalemate.
This is pretty ridiculous. You start off saying "everyone is equal" and you finish with "unless your not equal by my standards." No, I'm sorry, this nation was founded on the ideal that all are equal. That doesn't end when you receive government aide.
Your suggestion of change to weighted votes would never pass any state constitutional muster, let alone the Federal Constitution.
I wonder if you have the same objections when casting your vote in the Democratic Primaries? Does it bother you that your vote is only worth a very tiny fraction of say, Al Gore's vote?
I am curious about one thing. Wouldn't a govt. agency have to be made in order to do this? If you're running as a republican, wouldn't that go in the way of having more intrusive govt?
This nation was also founded during a time when the expectation was that you contribute or you perish. When you create systems that provide for redistribution (regardless of the reason), an inequality is created. Funny how people choose to cling to the founding documents when it is convenient.
For starters, I would not run as a Republican. No agency needed. Those on government aid are in a system(s). It could be handled quite easily. That's the problem with big government thinkers, you think an agency needs to be created for everything. Again, I'm not saying I would run on this concept. I'm simply testing this out for the academics of it.
I don't knnow of any, right now, but I suspect there are. Most of them don't stay on welfare long enough for me to get to know them. You do know the overwhelming majority of people on welfare who vote, vote for Democrats, don't you? You do realize the majority of second-generation chronic welfare folks vote Democrat, don't you? And, if your post was in response to my post right above it, it was an amazing non sequitor. Life isn't fair, Kranes. Liberals sit on their ass and whine about why someone hasn't made it fair for them.
You said in the OP: Then you have to have somebody organize it, check in the residence, verify stories etc. There's going to have to be an increase in the size of the govt, or a new govt. agency.
The ideal is 1 person = 1 vote. The status quo is more like $10,000 = 1 vote What's being proposed is more like $1 million = 1 vote.
I believe the opposite. The people who have it up the behind more (the poor) should have their votes weighted more.
The government is not supposed to be a store where you pop a dollar in and a dollar's worth of something comes out the other end. A government is there to (among other things) make sure that people don't overstep their bounds or exploit others. Government is about making a society where everyone can live, not just everyone who can afford to pay for it.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." —Benjamin Franklin
No, every man is created equal means just that. One person, one vote. It would give wait to those making more money. What the hell else would it do?
You can't change other people mentalities through political policy. Live your own life and let others live theirs.
Oh come on, you know you only want this because the Repubs would win every time if this was how voting worked... Fortunately it's not.
It's clear that toddwv refuses to answer this question so I now extend it to all Democrats reading this post.
Must be a joke.. it's already weighted.. those with the most money get the most influence in decisions that manage taxpayer's money.
are weighted by suspicion if they are on government subsistence or are less worthy to do the right thing based on whether they get anything from the government. I say thats true with any group that has a political voice( Motives based on their needs). For instance Union members would largely vote for things that would benefit them. To say someone on social security shouldn't get the same vote as everyone else is simply using bias as a means to be subjective and manipulative. Maybe the guy on social security paid his taxes and retired and now is only getting a government stipend because of changes to the laws that let his company default on their pension obligations, now he has a legitimate grievance that he has means to address through voting and changing the government by peaceable means.
A direct correlation of strength of vote to personal taxes paid would be nice. Too late for that, though.
I'm new here (still can't get a post past a moderator), but this is an interesting concept. I might go a step further. How about, as you state, not tying the weighting to how much money an individual makes, but tying it to how much taxes an individual pays. Voting is really mostly about how government money is spent so why not allow those who contribute most to have the most influence upon it's disposition?
So people who pay more get more voting power. Let's say there is a vote to increase that gap. Increasing the gap will win, because those who benefit from it are those who already have lots of voting power. Repeat. If one cunningly phases out a minority in every vote, we can have God-King Louis XIV in 50 yrs with no one with voting power to stop him. I realise that this can be seen as that slippery slope fallacy, but this one actually perpetuates itself. It isn't just one idea taken to an extreme, unless rich people decide that they have enough power now (what do you think the probabilities are?) no one will be able to stop it.
to have such thoughts, but more common than one may think. Look around you, and look at our campaign process, with the fundraisers of $500/plate and above, the people of 'means' who direct and influence, and the higher up we go, the more money is involved and the more ads and 'guidance' can be bought. So, if we want contributing members of society to have the say during the election, then we must also distinguish between those who have and create vs those who have and merely exist (trustfunders et al), and those who work for min wage vs those just coast along. Most all of the aforementioned have a brain, and should be involved in decision making, knowing that some are more interested than others in a-voting, and b- making an informed decision instead of voting by mere survival instinct. More effective than a weighted vote may be the creation of jobs to get the non productive yet capable members of society off Gov dole, leaving enough for those who fall ill and infirm, such that John wouldn't have to quit school to provide for his family.
