Connect with us

Voter Criteria

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by amdx, Jul 14, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Since my healthcare topic seems to have run its course.

    I think we need a new rule for voting.
    If you don't pay any federal income taxes, you can't vote.
    If you have no skin in the game, you can't vote.
    If you don't pay any federal income taxes and you vote,
    all you can do is transfer my labor into dollars in your pocket.


    PS. SS taxes are not federal income taxes, it's a forced payment into
    your retirement fund. Even if you call it payroll taxes.
  2. hamilton

    hamilton Guest

    Define "skin in the game"

    Or are you talking about chickens and pigs ?

  3. amdx

    amdx Guest

    "To have "skin in the game" is to have incurred monetary risk by being
    invested in achieving a goal."

    From Wikipedia, and says exactly what I wanted the term to convey.
  4. Wond

    Wond Guest

    For balance, _everyone's_ opinion is important, not just those with a
    dollar at stake.
  5. I have always felt that prospective voters should be required to pass an intelligence test at least every 4 years.

    No further comment.
  6. Artemus

    Artemus Guest

    Nor should anyone who is not a propery tax payer vote on issues which effect
    property taxes, like school bonds.
    Nor should city folk vote on issues which only effect rural areas.
  7. amdx

    amdx Guest

    And you think we have balance now?
    Oh maybe, about 50% don't pay taxes and about 50% do.
  8. amdx

    amdx Guest

    No problem, "I'll create and exception".
    I'll probably exempt most people on SS but not SSI.
    Anything else?
  9. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Since it takes wealth to incur monetary risk, you are simply
    saying you have to have some wealth to vote. That's been done
    before. And it was argued about quite vigorously before
    writing our Constitution.

  10. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Can we start with government Unions?
    That's a circle jerk if there ever was one!
  11. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Or get conscripted to fight to keep invaders from getting their hands on your dollars (and your daughters).

    This just another variation of the property holder franchise, which used toapply in more or less every English-speaking country. Now that you know this, you might want to find out why they broadened the electorate. You couldfind the reasoning educational.

    So what. Federal income taxes are - in large part - forced payments into a defence fund to pay for a standing army, whihc is another way of minimisinglife's uncertainties.
    It might also be good if they also demonstrated that they had some idea of why their system of government works the way it does now, which does require some knowledge of the way it used to work in earlier times. Those who don't understand history are condemned to recapitulate it.
  12. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Since you seem to want to re-invigorate it, I'll add
    something and then walk away and just watch. No longer care
    to convince anyone, one way or the other. But I don't mind
    stirring pots.
    I almost like Heinlein's approach -- if you haven't served a
    part of your life in __volunteer__ Federal service, you don't
    have the full rights of citizenship (ability to vote or hold
    office.) Starship Troupers is his story about showing what he
    felt it took to create a citizen worthy of the right to vote
    or hold office. Heinlein's approach doesn't require wealth.
    It asks the same personal time investment from rich and poor,

    All this stuff was argued vociferously during the early and
    mid parts of 1787, before finishing the writing of the US
    Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Since then, things have
    changed (we vote for Senators now, but didn't back then.)

    Making voting based upon wealth is an old question. During
    the US Constitutional Convention in Philidelphia, Gouverneur
    Morris said (you can find Bancroft's books on this topic
    [it's a 2-volume set] on Google Books, by the way):

    "The ignorant and the dependent can be as little trusted with
    the public interest as children."

    On the same day, James Madison said:

    "In future times, a great majority of the people will not
    only be without property in land, but property of any sort.
    These will either combine under the influence of their common
    situation, in which case the rights of property and the
    public liberty will not be secure in their hands, or, what is
    more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and
    ambition; in which case, there will be equal danger on
    another side."

    You would, I suppose, find little difficulty with the above
    world view.

    Ben Franklin said, just 3 days later, on August 10th of 1787:

    "I dislike everything that tends to debase the spirit of the
    common people. If honesty is often the companion of wealth,
    and if poverty is exposed to peculiar temptation, the
    possession of property increases the desire for more. Some
    of the greatest rogues I was ever acquainted with were the
    richest rogues. Remember, the scripture requires in rulers
    that they should be men hating covetousness. If this
    constitution should betray a great partiality to the rich, it
    will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and
    enlightened men in Europe, but discourage the common people
    from removing to this country."

    In the end, Ben Franklin's opinion and that of others who
    agreed with him, together with the opinions of Madison and
    Morris and others, were cobbled together into what we have
    today. There is NO wealth test, but the States were left to
    devise methods of selecting their Senators, for example,
    leaving significant power in the hands of those wealthy
    enough to have regular access to education and power.

    That week in early to mid August was quite a week, by the
    way. A lot of world views about wealth and poor and their
    various peculiarities were exposed in plain view. And there
    wasn't much agreement. Enough to get things done, but not a
    lot. There was a divide and significant prejudices all around
    about those who they understand poorly and that division of
    perspectives continues to this day and is just as incorrect
    and false today as it was then. (And I'm speaking about the
    views that each have of the other; both are false and born
    from a lack of understanding.)

  13. amdx

    amdx Guest

    You could find the reasoning educational. I'm aware of what has preceded us. But I like the argument and if "we"
    could have just 40 years, maybe we could get back closer to where we
    started, and save the country.
    I wish that was all we paid for, Entitlements take 90% of all the tax
    money that is collected. Look it up, never mind I'll do it, I found some
    data here,
    If you don't trust Heritage, the government source page is listed.

    In 2012 tax revenue collected was 2.435 Trillion and entitlement
    spending was 2.053 Trillion, that's 84% of tax revenue. Sorry I was a
    little off, back when I constructed my total for entitlements I think
    included military retirement costs, the numbers on this page don't.
    Also note: Defense spending is 27.4% of tax revenue.

    84% + 27.4% is 111.4%, How does that work? We borrowed 1.13 Trillion.

  14. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Yea, me to, me to. LOL

  15. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Not necessarily wealth, I just want you to pay some federal taxes.
    Lots of people make good money pay taxes and a have negative net worth.
    Some countries live that way. Not sure how long they survive though.
  16. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    You pay federal taxes if your income is sufficient. If your
    income is that sufficient, you are probably also in
    possession of wealth in this country.
    If their parents were poor and they are young, yes.

  17. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    In fact, what you had in 1776 and for a quite few years after that.
    What you had was Tammany Hall - amongst many similar organisations - and yoir country is a long way from being saved from them and their heirs and successors. Your constitution was a fairly early attempt at moderately representative democracy. More modern constitutions - like the one Germany got in 1948 - work a whole lot better. What France has got was written later - 1958 - but it was heavily influenced de Gaulle and reflect his particular interests and prejudices.
    The Heritage Foundation is right wing think tank. If you trust their propaganda, you probably think that James Arthur can think straight.
    With the very sensible aim of avoiding a rerun of The Great Depression. Sadly, you didn't borrow enough at the start, so you stayed in recession longer than you should have done, and had to keep on borrowing for longer beforethe economy got going again.
  18. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Heinlein could write, but he couldn't think.
    You need to read Jonathan I. Israel's "Democratic Enlightenment" ISBN 978-0-19-954820-0. The American Revolution exploited some Radical Enlightenment ideas to get the masses on-side - Tom Paine was a useful propagandist, but had no direct influence on the creation of the US constitution, which was all Moderate Enlightenment, which has the defect of leaving the fat cats in control of the cream jug.

    The current US Gini index - 45%, rivalled only by China at 47% - shows how effectively the fat cats have hung onto the cream jug. Scandinavia works fine with a Gini index of 25%, Germany works very well indeed with a Gini index of 28.3% and most advanced industrial countries come out at 30% of bit higher.
  19. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Like I said, I almost like it.
    I'll see about getting and reading it. I've spent a fair
    amount of time reading the various personal letters from the
    period between about 1750 and 1810, or so, already. Along
    with published letters in the New York Journal (from that
    period.) And session records of the Confederation Congress
    from around 1783 to 1785. I've learned a lot that I never got
    even close to in any history books in public schools here.
    And stuff that differs dramatically from popular opinion in
    the US about that time. I'm well aware of propaganda going
    on. Doesn't mean I can't learn more.

    By the way, propaganda is much better understood today after
    the expenditure of trillions of dollars in this last century
    (since certainly before the 1920's and going forward.) And
    that science knowledge is used quite effectively here in the
    US. It's sickening. But it works. In the US, manufacturing
    consent is worth a lot of money.
    Now that's a subject I don't need to be informed about. My
    opinions about the US in that light are quite strong and
    would probably largely agree with yours. Perhaps exceeding
    them. There is a great article... see below:

    The author has a lot of experience he's working from and it's
    probably fairly accurate.

  20. miso

    miso Guest

    It must really suck to be you.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day