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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.


No clowns either, especially cannibal clowns, or people who eat clowns, or clown aliens, or illegal clown aliens... or people who like clowns...




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Clown lobbyists (is that redundant?) would fight it.




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

I think its worth a shot. Basically we have lower class people voting against the upper class by trying to elect socialists like Obama, Sanders, and Clinton.

On the other side we have these backwoods church goers looking for a Moral Majority messiah.

Let the people with money,( who are actually responsible for keeping the economy alive) have more say.

However, there needs to be some form of transparency. We need to make sure that none of these voters are receiving tax funded kickbacks.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Nothing wrong with a little redundancy, I mean who doesn't love a dumb blonde every now and then?




posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
As much as I rail against any idea that makes one citizen's vote worth more than another's (like our electoral college does)... if that had to happen, why not make it based on either IQ or tests to see how informed you are on current events?

The fact that quite a few Trump voters were surprised to learn that they'd be losing the ACA when they lose Obamacare (they didn't know they were the same thing) tells me we had a lot of uninformed voters voting for Trump.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   
There are lots of socialists here on ATS. Many of them want to tax the rich at a higher percentage than any other bracket. They want to pretend that equality is a true and noble virtue, yet they want to punish the rich for having what the poor do not have. I say, if you think its ok to burden the rich with higher taxes, then their vote should count more. After all, it is the tax dollars of the upper and middle class paying for the medicaid and welfare for the poor.

Social equality is a delusion. We should all have the same basic freedoms and right to justice, but wealth, power and influence will always be unevenly distributed.

The voice of the people is vanity...like the cries of scared sheep.
edit on 1-4-2017 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Good point. Why should the rich pay a higher percentage tax? That's not equality in my books. The tax rate should be flat. The US is not Canada where the more you earn, the higher a percentage of tax you pay.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
As much as I rail against any idea that makes one citizen's vote worth more than another's (like our electoral college does)... if that had to happen, why not make it based on either IQ or tests to see how informed you are on current events?

The fact that quite a few Trump voters were surprised to learn that they'd be losing the ACA when they lose Obamacare (they didn't know they were the same thing) tells me we had a lot of uninformed voters voting for Trump.


Weighting the democratic process based on IQ or 'political' tests is considered discriminatory.

A system like that would require the repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was enacted due to the Civil Rights Movement.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I think just the menfolk should vote.

The gals can just stay in the kitchen baking and doing the washing.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

I voted trump. I hate obamacare. But aca sounds promising. We should do that one



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor

originally posted by: Abysha
As much as I rail against any idea that makes one citizen's vote worth more than another's (like our electoral college does)... if that had to happen, why not make it based on either IQ or tests to see how informed you are on current events?

The fact that quite a few Trump voters were surprised to learn that they'd be losing the ACA when they lose Obamacare (they didn't know they were the same thing) tells me we had a lot of uninformed voters voting for Trump.


Weighting the democratic process based on IQ or 'political' tests is considered discriminatory.

A system like that would require the repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was enacted due to the Civil Rights Movement.


Well duh. What do you think what the OP proposed would be doing?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Good point. Why should the rich pay a higher percentage tax? That's not equality in my books. The tax rate should be flat. The US is not Canada where the more you earn, the higher a percentage of tax you pay.


I was always more for a flat sales tax, but if we want a prosperity backed voting power system, then I think a flat rate income tax would be the best model. The taxes you pay would determine how much voting power you get. That would deter a lot of people from evading taxes.

Basically your wealth indicates how much of the economy you own, manage, and contribute to. Its only fair to give more power to those who own larger portions of the economy.

S&F. You gotta have some balls to post a thread like this here.
edit on 1-4-2017 by BELIEVERpriest because: added point



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Dunno, until such tests become a bit more encompassing and, dare I say, relevant.. I'm not sure they would be a good basis for anything beyond stroking egos.

As for weighting it according to income.. in a lot of ways that is what we have now. Making it "official" may very well exacerbate some very, very serious issues. A higher income may suggest more of a vested interest, but just because someone has more riding on the success of the nation doesn't mean they are at all capable of making decisions that will ensure that success in a completely different context.

I think the only way a weighted system would even approach being effective is if we had some method to accurately quantify skill and potential in the arenas of governance, etc. Very tricky..



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest


You have it only partly correct. You don't have to be a socialist to understand it either so let me explain.

You tax the rich more than the middle and the middle more than the bottom for one very simple reason. That is where the money is at. It doesn't do you any good to tax people that don't have money to pay taxes now does it???

Also, about 80% of the population shares about 7% of the Economy while the top 1% own 40% of it. Think about what that actually means. There is no middle class. Hell, there is hardly even an upper class. What we have is just poor and slightly more than poor for 8 out of 10 people. Then 10%-20% that are rich and 1% that are super f*cking rich!!

BTW, it's not the rich people that keep the economy going either. It's everyone else but them actually. It's those 80%'ers that are the ones spending the money and buying things which keeps that money flowing through everyone's stores, and bank accounts. It's that money circulating that IS the economy. Money doesn't do any good just sitting somewhere collecting more money. One super rich guy can't spend enough to keep a whole economy going. It takes those other 8 out of 10 people.

Nobody, not even socialists are saying everyone should have exactly the same wealth. That is just stupid and shows you don't know what you're talking about. But there is some amount of normal ratio between the richest and the poorest that must be maintained or you have no economy.

If you think I'm lying go look at the stats and charts about wealth. You think an economy is healthy when 1% of the population is making in 1 second what middle class workers make in a year??? You think that is really going to work???


edit on 1-4-2017 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

It's amusing that you two are pooping all over "equality" and snickering at socialists for thinking equality is possible...

And then turn around and talk about how it would "be fair" if your suggestions happened.

Inequality works both ways, folks. Don't whine about how the lower and middle classss can't expect fairness and equality and then turn around and whine about how it would be fair if this or that happened for the upper class.

Then again you both seem to think this is a good idea so what can one expect from you



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Abysha

Dunno, until such tests become a bit more encompassing and, dare I say, relevant.. I'm not sure they would be a good basis for anything beyond stroking egos.

As for weighting it according to income.. in a lot of ways that is what we have now. Making it "official" may very well exacerbate some very, very serious issues. A higher income may suggest more of a vested interest, but just because someone has more riding on the success of the nation doesn't mean they are at all capable of making decisions that will ensure that success in a completely different context.

I think the only way a weighted system would even approach being effective is if we had some method to accurately quantify skill and potential in the arenas of governance, etc. Very tricky..


Well I'm firmly in the camp that there is no "good" way to make it weighted and the thought even crossing a person's mind should make them feel ashamed.

I was just saying if we had to, it should be based on voter knowledge.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

S&F. You gotta have some balls to post a thread like this here.


Yeah, you have to have balls and zero brains.

Tell me genius with a flat tax of say $5,000 bucks. Does that seem like a good idea for the guy who's making $10,000 a year compared to the guy making $500,000 a year??

I'm sure it does for the wealthy guy since 5 out of 500,000 isn't sh*t. But for the other guy that is half of his years wages. Does that sound like it's going to have a thriving middle class??? It seems to me that it would just be punishing everyone closest to that median rate like a black hole people could almost never escape from. Also where is the cut off?? Or do you expect to get taxes from people making under the amount they're supposed to pay in taxes also??? Cause I don't know how that is supposed to work.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
In Sweden, everyone that has the right to vote will get one of these

in the mail (in good time before an election) and that's all, along with a valid ID, you need to vote.
Inside you will find a lot of info + where you should go and vote.
Also we hold elections on sundays, when most people are off from work.
Pretty K.I.S.S., if you ask me.

IMHO the "American way", seems rather stupid. Voting on Tuesday, people can't vote because they can't get off from work etc etc
And that electoral college thing, isn't that contrary to “that government of the people, by the people, for the people...”?
Edit: I mean, you count the votes and the one with the most votes win...........
edit on 412017 by BobbyRock because: meh



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BobbyRock

Sweden is a monarchy. Technically speaking, every citizen is a subject of the monarch, every citizen is a property of the monarch. See WW1. Millions of soldiers died in a war game between monarchs who are cousins. Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't voting in monarchies like Sweden and Britain voting for party rather than voting for candidates?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BobbyRock

Yes, the American way is stupid and difficult and it's that way by design.

A lot of work goes into making voting difficult because it keeps people from voting. That didn't just happen by accident. Nor did all the district layouts and the way everything is counted and the BS propaganda to confuse everyone and having it during the middle of the week, etc. It's done like that because it helps stop anyone who's time is spent slaving to the system from voting.

Obviously in Sweden the idea and concept of democratic voting and power in the hands of all the people is understood and respected to some degree. Here in America it is just cute story, a fictional tale we like to tell each other because it sounds cool, but we don't actually treat it as if it's a real thing. It's like Santa. It's something we talk about at certain times that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy but in reality we all know it's just a lie we play along with now and then.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join