Of course it is. But it is an attempt to swing elections to more qualified individuals and away from the unqualified celebrities. Kind of an attempt to change our current popularity contest where the person who promises the most cake and circuses is elected and create a system where the person most likely to improve things gets the votes.
Most celebrities are quite well-to-do. How would it eliminate them? Aren't you also promoting the ones who would provide the most "cake"? You are simply deciding who gets to eat of it, not whether or not it would be provided.
Who said anything about eliminating celebrities? I simply suggested that a smarter and more educated electorate would be less likely to elect a charismatic yet foolish individual to office than an uneducated electorate. As for providing the most cake, I do believe that such a shift would push politicians to enact policies that would benefit taxpayers rather than policies focused on the non-taxpaying majority. The current situation forces working people to pay for all of the benefits the non-working people want. Why shouldn't the people who actually pay the bills have more say in what is done with their money than people who don't pay anything?
Educate people in rhetoric. Teach them how easy it is to sway the minds of the public and what tricks they use to do it. To just use the people biased in a certain way is a rubbish way to conduct politics. In Sweden, we once had a system where you had to have a certain income or wealth to be able to vote. It had to be removed because the people with less voting power decided that the only way for them to have their say was to have a revolution.
Because that group will enact policy that benefits themselves, not the common good. It doesn't matter how you define the subset of people who will retain the right to vote. That remnant will be self serving always and everywhere. The very nature of what the Founders invented was a system that gives the minority a voice. It is why we are not a strict democracy, which is simply the legal codification of "might makes right". We are a democratic republic, and this is exactly why. Think of all the people who worked on the Trans-Atlantic railroad. Worked and died for it. By your reckoning these people didn't contribute to the country, because they didn't pay taxes. You have their ilk working like dogs at multiple jobs to support a family and don't make enough to be taxed, or their head of household status eliminates the tax they owe. Do they not contribute to the country? Are they simply chattel compared to the people successful enough to be taxed? I don't want to live in your world. It is self-serving and myopic, and dishonors millions who toil in anonymity and make our country run.
