Everyone is created equal, but what a person does after that is up to them. Not everyone ends up equal. Mother Teresa isn't equal to Charles Manson. Each made a series of decisions that made one far greater than the other. Many people want to pretend that everyone is the same, but that just isn't the case. Some people are just plain better than others.
I assume you're talking about the teachers' unions. But, we're talking about votes and not buying corrupt politicians.
Granny says she don't think she'd support it... ... `cause dat would give Uncle Ferd's fat g/f's... ... too much say so.
Weighted votes. I am totally opposed to Michael Moore's vote counting 5 times as much as my vote. For historical reference. Slaves were not counted as 3/5th of a person because white racist want to demean blacks. The yankees wanted slaves to not count at all in awarding congressional representation because they wanted to totally dominate the South in Congress. The South, not surprisingly, wanted slaves to count as a full person so they would have more representation in Congress. Also, it wasn't about blacks. It was about slaves. Citizenship did not depend on skin color in either the north or the south.
I always thought that Mark Twain's "Curious Republic of Gondour" had an interesting method of weighting votes. You get 1 for breathing 1 for graduating high-school, 1 for a degree, 1 for a higher degree. You can also get votes for amount of wealth you have. I might tweak it so the votes are based on income or payroll taxes paid, and give it a limit, maybe 1 for 5,000 in taxes, 1 for 50,000, 1 for 500,000. This system ensured that the most educated and the people who contribute the most had the most say in government.
Anybody hear about Citzens United ruling? It all about voting with your dollars now..Votes have been weighted for a good while now.
That's subjective. More money =/= better. Every person is equal under the law of this country. No one is the same as anyone else, but we all have the same rights.
Because the amount of money one makes is totally an accurate representation of what the contribute to society. (sarcasm, it's not)
There is nothing wrong with people who support weighted voting, as long as they hate democracy. You might as well abandon the concept of democracy altogether. Any choice of criteria is subjective rather than objective and it helps remove the last resort of the underprivileged - their potentially equal say in who gets elected to office. Surely the Voter Registration Act, grotesque levels of campaign spending, third party ads, crucial interest groups and lack of transparency have done enough to damage democracy in the United States of America without bringing in yet another anti-democratic measure!
Who said anything about money? Of the two people I mentioned in the referenced post, the richer one was by far the worse of the two.
How is democracy a good thing? Democracy is what says that gays can't get married. Democracy created a whole class of leeches and has forced a few people to pay for everything. Democracy has driven many companies overseas. Democracy has wrecked the societies that have tried it.
People on assistance should have a full vote because they: 1.) are the only people who can be counted on to any extent to fight for their own interests and would be ignored otherwise. 2.) because they have as much stake in macro-level concerns as everyone else 3.) because theoretically they desire to be off assistance in the future and should have some say in issues that make this easier or harder, as well as in issues that impact their futures as people off assistance. The way to fix democracy is not to restrict people based on ideological hang-ups. It's to educate people and give them more stake in national outcomes.
Or they should not have a full vote because: 1 - they tend to be less educated and often are less intelligent than others. 2 - they don't seem to understand how to get out of poverty and are more likely to support programs that will just keep them there.
This is collective punishment that directly contradicts any meaningful definition of individualism (from the left or right). "Tends to be" isn't a good enough reason, particularly since I find most middle classers are woefully ignorant on the subject of policy, illiterate when it comes to science (either hard or social), and just as inclined to short-sighted, myopic thinking (aren't we all?). If I am to accept this reason, why should I think anyone should be allowed to vote. After all, the more educated groups still tend to lack knowledge in the relevant subjects. In addition, how can we expect to solve the problem of their lower education rate, when the people with stake in that situation are further weakened? I always call BS on the idea of "programs that keep them there." This view implies that somehow it is the programs that make them less likely to leave poverty, which is an ideology-based unfounded assumption based on faulty logic. 1. Programs give resources, which people MAY use to help themselves out of poverty. Lack of these resources makes it harder. 2. Programs give stake in the system which allows us to encourage beneficial behaviors 3. Most people on assistance actually have views on work and such issues that are like those of most Americans (it's a lot like the Tea Party "keep government out of my Medicare" thing... which is also an example of idiocy by middle classers). And then, also... why is this a problem? Rich people are able to vote to support policies that keep them rich or help increase the size of their piece of the pie. Middle classers can continue to back entitlements for themselves that they don't want to pay for (I assume you're not counting entitlements; otherwise we are going to wind up being an oligarchy) The fact is that most of the people you worry about don't even vote and when they do they don't necessarily do it for their own interests (ore know what their interests are). But this describes a large chunk of the population. Your idea is far more arbitrary than it appears and really just an excuse to exclude demographics you suspect would vote against your own narrow interests.
If Hiimjered doesn't want to live in a democracy, I invite him to go live in a country where he will feel more comfortable (North Korea, perhaps?). If he wants to overthrow democracy in the United States he is no true American.
Well the united states is a republic and has never been a democracy. Who are you to determine who is and who isn't a "true American"? That phrase is absolute bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!
It's tradition that says that gays can't marry. Democracy gives us at least a chance to change that. Tradition told us what it meant to "deserve", democracy has allowed us to change that definition in practice as well as in theory. I'm not exactly sure what you refer to with the driving companies overseas, but if something is exploiting us, then we do want it gone, even if it is a company. Every single form of government is overturned every once in a while. Even the ancient Greeks had formed a long-scale theory of which kinds of government tend to succeed which. You can't have a fool proof society. If it tries to be, then it does not take the people into account and will have civil war or revolution (or similar). To stick to democracy as long as possible is reasonable, it tends not to have as much exploiting and war.
tpaine, rather than give tax payers a weighted vote...why not allow tax payers to directly choose which government organizations receive their individual taxes? Kinda the same concept...but compare the responses.
Much controversy surrounds the origin of the following, yet it certainly rings true! "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." We seem to have reached the point of no peaceful return! For the record, I think Alexis de Tocqueville the originator. My guess is as good as any!
Yes, but I wouldn't say it's as deterministic as this quote. Leave any form of government long enough, and statistically, sooner or later, it's going to have killed itself. But I'm not sure that we are necessarily at that point just yet. I think that with a good and mandatory education, in social sciences, rhetoric, economics and ethics (and possibly a few others), one can perpetuate a system which isn't based on everyone trying to milk as much money as possible out of the system before it collapses.
Considering that nobody should be receiving handouts from Congress anyway, I view the question itself as invalid.
Most of the milking in our system is actually done through the tax code. Going on assistance carries stigma. Finding ways to reduce tax burden is considered smart, even responsible. Also tax loopholes are politically easier to pass than assistance programs (for that very reason). It's funny how that works. The "socialist" Euro countries often have flatter taxes than the US (well... if we only count the federal income tax, as most people bemoaning progressivity do) but make up for it with more direct and honest redistribution. It's been suggested also that this set-up takes the people's focus off the tax code and puts it on actually solving problems (not sure how much I buy that, but there's a kernel of truth there).
I think the candidacy of the OP has crashed and burned. Variations on this idea have been bandied about since the time of the framing of the COTUS, with Hamilton wanting only land owners to have the vote, thus protecting his own interests. How about this. I propose drug testing on the wealthy to allow them to take their tax reduction welfare. Any takers?
