It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

May I suggest a weighted voting scheme?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
So I'm not all that comfortable with a 1 person 1 vote scheme. Under this system, the lower class dominates because the lower class is the most numerous, but policies that appeal to the lower class, such as massive welfare, are detrimental to society as a whole. See USSR.

I propose a weighted voting system where each vote is weighted by the president's salary? Why the president? Because the president is the head of state, the highest ranked person of the nation. Let's say you earn 22,000 annually. Your vote would have a value of 22,000 / 400,000. Let's say you earn 22,000,000 annually. Your vote would have a value of 22,000,000 / 400,000. This way, more influential people have more vote per person and less influential people have less vote per person.

Your thoughts?




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Your first problem is thinking the President is above every other person in the country and should count more. "Highest ranked person" in the country?


And then it's downhill from there.

Why not just say you want a ruling elite class? Or an oligarchy? No need to dress it up with values and percentages.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Just let people vote more than once then. Just pay $ for however many times you want your vote to count. But if you dont have $ then you can also barter. We are geniuses



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Under this system, the lower class dominates

If true, why hasn't the lower class advanced a member of their ranks to the head-of-state position?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

I am sorry I have to disagree with you. Self worth doesn't = self monetry worth.

If anything we need to change the system so people with a lot of money or organisations can't influence candidates or political parties unfairly.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

The president has a fixed salary. He is highest ranked. He is not highest paid. He can be used as the standard in this weighted voting scheme.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
No...just no. All legal citizens should get a vote, though I'm not opposed to a voter having to understand badic government, at leadt how the three branches on the US are set up.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

If the US did have a 1 person 1 vote system, Hillary would be president because more people voted for her than for any other candidate. Poor people vote Democrat because they need massive welfare. The founding fathers saw this danger and established the electoral college scheme.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
There is nothing wrong with the current system.

The electoral college worked as intended.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Smart people make better decisions, so only smart people should vote.

Sounds just as ugly as weighing votes by how much you make, doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

You may consider the president to be your better.

I don't.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

He is not better or worse than any other citizen. He is the president. He is the standard. So that's why his salary can be used as the denominator in the weighted voting scheme.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

In context I agree with you. However, in practice your assertion fails. When is the last time the lower classes actually got their way? The upper class only gives them barely enough to scrape by and even then its a meager existence. If the lower classes got their way the upper classes would be paying 50% tax and the lower would be paying nothing.

One man one vote will always favor the majority, regardless of who it is. The only majority that matters though is the one that can enact policy. Any other majority is silent at best.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Under this system, the lower class dominates

If true, why hasn't the lower class advanced a member of their ranks to the head-of-state position?


History gives you Obama...



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
There should be no requirement to vote except that one be a US Citizen.


We are a nation of equals.


With that said, we already HAVE a weighted system. Just look at the SuperPACs.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

In a democracy, everyone has a vote. I merely suggest a weight to everyone's vote.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: DBCowboy

In a democracy, everyone has a vote. I merely suggest a weight to everyone's vote.


One, we're not a democracy, two, everyone is equal.

You just want some to be more equal than others.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

For at least ten years of my life I made less than 36k and still consistently voted for less entitlement programs and lower taxes for everyone.

Reread your OP and ask yourself, is this really something I ought to have said?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Except the president works for the people. The people don't work for the president. So why does his vote count orders of magnitude more than the majority of people?

It doesn't matter how you try to rephrase it: you're advocating a ruling elite.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join