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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

So you're basically saying Humanity is a failure???

I don't have a problem with that concept actually. It's a reasonable conclusion to come to in fact. But at that point why not just conclude failure and not even bother with regressing back through suffering to learn a lesson. Most likely if we were to then start again we would just do the same thing again. Or even if we did learn something, starting over without resources would make it impossible to cycle through another attempt anyway.

I think we can either try and fix it from where we are and more forward or call it quits for good. Reversing and starting again I don't think is a realistic option at this point. We've gone too far to start again I think. It's either press on or stop and give up.




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I believe humanity without God is a failure. Relying on our individual and collective efforts always yields the same results...vanity.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Well, it seems that Belief in God is what has lead us here, or at least it led us up until whatever point it was in our past that eventually took us here. So I don't see why that would make a difference now if it didn't back then. Either way we're still here now.

I think that whole God thing has and is part of the problem. Right off the bat you can't get everyone to agree on which God that even is and nobody wants to back down or give in. But you get that part figured out first and let me know and then we'll work on step two.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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


Just because you think your opinion is in the majority doesn't make it right. Go make a picket sign, socialist.


And now that you've called me a socialist you've just shown what a mental midget you really are lol. Keep trying tough guy.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
U know every time I hear a idea like that I go we shuld let them try that for 10 years see if it works out

Other ways to do it on a simular level

Vote every year ... I like this one it will be like watching the blind drive

No voting take the richest and the poorest person and have the fight to the death for who rules for a while lol that be alot of fun and think of the TV ratings

Make ur vote really count ... maby ... a lottery system where everyone picks a number and the winners vote



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Considering the original cry was no taxation without representation, I can write it pretty easily. There are plenty of people today who are represented without direct taxation, and they blithely vote for lots of us to be taxed even more while they are not taxed at all.

At some point, you have more than half the country voting to tax the minority more and more of what they work hard to make and the taxed become an under-represented minority.

At what point do you see that the system is then unfair to them? Understand that most people who are taxed directly are NOT at all rich. I am talking about families like my own that do not make anywhere near a six digit income but we are still taxed somewhere north of 40% between state and federal, and there is nearly half the country that has NO direct tax liability voting for us to be taxed MORE than that even.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Any time someone fiddles with the way people are represented, to move it away from universal suffrage, it screws the pooch massively.

USSR? Not universal suffrage, look what a mess that was, 5 million dead Ukranians can't be wrong.

EU? All their out of touch, bat poo rules are a result of not allowing the people to elect the lawmakers, only the rubber stampers.


Generally, one person, one vote works and stops the worst excesses of crazy people who shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.



The idea that one person is more worthy because "they know better" or pay more tax is anathema to the modern world. If you disenfranchise people, you better know that one day, it'll be your head on a spike above the city gates.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Was this thread meant to be an April Fools joke?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is what I was talking about earlier. If you're making under 6 figures then I'm not talking about you being taxed more. It's those who are above you, well above you actually that need to be taxed more and you less. But for some reason you protect them and demonize those who make even less than you. You blame the people below you when you should be looking at those above you and asking why they get all the tax breaks. You are nowhere near the top of the scale that I'm talking about. You're just another one of the poor basically but just doing slightly better than those below you.

Even taxing 50% of someone who's making 10 million a year seems fair compared to someone making 20,000 a year and not taxing them at all. Why??? Because the first guy still gets 5 million. Do you think it's fair to tax them both 50% just so the numbers match up??? Because at 5 million you're still perfectly fine, but the guy left with 10,000 isn't. Sure the tax percentage may seem fair since it's the same for both of them but one guy still has plenty to live off of while the other guy now lives in his car in a parking lot. You want to talk about fair yet when you look at the wealth inequality happening now it's anything but fair. 80% of the population sharing 7% of the wealth while 1% share 40% of the wealth. Sure, that sounds fair....



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Absolutely not. Perhaps I need to post more often if anyone would think that of me. Or perhaps it is me if anyone would think that after all...

But since history isn't really even barely glossed over perhaps I should explain why the 3/5 Clause in the US Constitution existed. The argument over the slavery issue goes back further than the Civil War or even pre-war Abolitionism like John Brown and Bloody Kansas.

Right from the get go, the South wanted to be sure that they were well represented in the House. Since population determines Represetatives, they wanted to count the slaves despite not having the ability to vote. The North realized they would be under represented, thus the 3/5 rule. Which did not extend to white women in either case. They were still counted as zero.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

He said nothing of the sort.

The OP as much as said that some people because they're rich should have more influence in voting.

How is that in any way different than the 3/5 rule? I thought of that right off the bat, as well.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
The OP is trying to find a way to reduce welfarism.
At the same time we want to maximize voting
We also want it to seem fair and not favor the rich.

The conventional reasoning would be to strip voter rights or people on certain types of welfare. This is based on class, would be called racist bc certain races cannot climb social mobility ladders....for another topic

To create enough gridlock to prevent welfare bills and yet allow people with welfare to feel their voices are heard here is my take on it.

To vote for senate candidates someone must be married.
This should be a sufficient condition to block welfare bills. I am even excluded using this criteria and I am ok with it.

Tell me what you think and if I don't get some new -ism thrown at me I will be disappointed.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

Really?? Because it sounds to me like he's trying to justify the right to vote based on wealth. That's what is being said here.

That anyone with a net worth lower than what is determined to be acceptable is therefore not worthy of a voice when it comes to public policy decisions.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: jellyrev

Really?? Because it sounds to me like he's trying to justify the right to vote based on wealth. That's what is being said here.

That anyone with a net worth lower than what is determined to be acceptable is therefore not worthy of a voice when it comes to public policy decisions.





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.


OP is worried about the proles voting for wealth redistribution. Which they could if they wanted. classic liberalism and the concept of proportion is too entrenched in the white population hence why dems used immigration to change demographics.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Income does not imply wealth. You can have a high income and still be in the red due to over spending. You can have a low income and still be in the black due to low spending. Income simply simply level of work.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The thing is, the fewer people that have the vote, the more concentrated bad decisions become.
Widening the level of suffrage evens out those blips and protects us all from the nutcase element.

And worrying about the sort of people on welfare because they are simply feckless and lazy is daft, they won't drag their sorry ar5es down to the polling booth anyway as a rule.

Show me a country that restricts democratic participation based on wealth or some other construct and, chances are, it's a failing state.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

Wealth redistribution is already happening only it's going to the rich now.

Which is why you have 1% owing 40% of the nations wealth and 80% sharing 7%.

That is just retarded and bad for the economy. But that kind of redistribution you have no problem with???



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: jellyrev

Wealth redistribution is already happening only it's going to the rich now.

Which is why you have 1% owing 40% of the nations wealth and 80% sharing 7%.

That is just retarded and bad for the economy. But that kind of redistribution you have no problem with???


I'm not here to argue tax or economic policy, that is outside the topic at hand.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Income doesn't imply a measurement of work either. The working poor work a hell of a lot harder than the rich. They just don't get paid as much.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

No, you're here to justify taking away the right to vote for poor people.

I'm not stopping you from that.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join