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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: GreyScale

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...

Yeah ... you got me there.




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye


Sounds like the quickest way possible to Plutocratic Despotism.

I no longer even take anything you have to say serious.

Nobody other than the most Un-American Authoritarian elitist sociopath would even suggest what you just said.

You are literally the enemy of every freedom loving person on earth who believes in the democratic process.

That's what I think....



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

People who have low income are either too young and inexperienced or have made bad life decisions. People who have high income are either people who are aged and experienced or have made good life decisions. Why should someone in the former class have the same vote as someone in the latter class? It makes little sense to me.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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.


Why not make the presidents salary the average income of all Americans?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

The president is a standard, sort of like the gold standard. It's only used in the weighting, that's all. If not the president, then who would you suggest as the denominator in a weighting scheme? A celebrity? A singer? A movie star? An athlete?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:14 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?


Obama got there.






posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: DBCowboy

People who have low income are either too young and inexperienced or have made bad life decisions. People who have high income are either people who are aged and experienced or have made good life decisions. Why should someone in the former class have the same vote as someone in the latter class? It makes little sense to me.






posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Shamrock6

The president is a standard, sort of like the gold standard. It's only used in the weighting, that's all. If not the president, then who would you suggest as the denominator in a weighting scheme? A celebrity? A singer? A movie star? An athlete?


Nobody.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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?


I think a better system would be to switch to a flat tax rate with the ability to opt out, but, if you opt out, you lose the vote. And if order to gain the vote back again, you must be able to prove that you have been paying your flat tax rate for four years to opt back in. That would stop people from only paying their taxes on election years.

Opting out would opt you out of all Federal level elections (Rep, Senate, and Pres along with any special issues like any Amendment proposals).

Individual states would still be free to do as they liked with their own tax structures of course.

In other words, no representation without direct taxation.
edit on 1-4-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This is one of the worst ideas i've ever read.

I think if you implemented this you'd have a full blown Communist revolution within 5 years. what a terrible idea.
edit on -050008pm4kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

I dont think that is true. Not everyone poor has made bad life decisions. Some people just dont worship money. I work for my brother and i just take whatever he pays me at the end of the week and im fine with it. I dont ask for extra and i dont plan on buying a mansion.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

I think its a good idea but I can tell you this. My families always voted there conscious. Always have, aways will. And as anyone who hasn't been tainted with the Lib brush knows voting your conscience means voting Republican. So if you can come up with a system that re-educates the Left into doing whats right and decent (that'll be the day!!) then you've got my vote because theirs only two ways this thing will end and both of them rhyme with "thunderbolt".



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

How can you even write that and still claim to uphold the Constitution or Care about Equal Rights or even claim to know anything about what America stands for???

So according to your idea anyone not able to pay whatever the flat tax rate is would not be able to vote. That way you get to just ignore all those damn poor people and what they have to say or what they would vote for.

It's disgusting that you'd even suggest it. But stuff like this no longer even shocks me when you say it now. Because it's simply a window into exactly what a sociopath and authoritarian you are.

You think like a elitist and a fascist. Yet you're on here always claiming some loyalty to the constitution and that you're against the elite establishment. Such BS!!

As if it's not enough that the Wealthy just flat out buy our Government. Now you're actually suggesting that we ignore votes based on personal wealth. Talk about the ultimate Pay to Play!!! Such hypocrisy!!



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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?



We already have a weighted voting scheme because of the electoral college. For example, a Californian's vote is worth less than others. A person can be elected with only 23% of the popular vote and, probably to the joy of many on ATS, a white person's vote is still worth more than a minority because of the way our population is distributed.

So you already have what you want.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   

edit on 1-4-2017 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: dp



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

hahahaha...the only problem with that technique is that the wealthier usually dont draw a salary but often times shares in lieu of salary.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Only people with dogs as pets should be allowed to vote, cat lovers "`you're done!"



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye




People who have low income are either too young and inexperienced or have made bad life decisions


Another of your fallacies shines through, you obviously have not put any serious thinking behind this.
Ever hear of injuries that put people out of work?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: DBCowboy

Only people with dogs as pets should be allowed to vote, cat lovers "`you're done!"


Mimes should never vote.

Ever.

Oh yeah, and people who play the banjo.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: DBCowboy

People who have low income are either too young and inexperienced or have made bad life decisions. People who have high income are either people who are aged and experienced or have made good life decisions. Why should someone in the former class have the same vote as someone in the latter class? It makes little sense to me.


Or live off their parents trust fund, or won the lottery, or inheritance, or was lucky enough to be unfortunate enough to have to sue some company/person who horribly wronged them.

Looks like we have a heavy hitter for the Derp of the Year Award.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join