1 person 1 vote is stupid. Democracy was never supposed to be this way.

Why should a homeless man on drugs on the streets have the same vote as a hard working billionaire who creates thousands of jobs and pays millions in taxes to contribute to schools, hospitals, science and technology research at universities and so on? It's not fair. In my opinion, a person's vote should be weighted by how much tax that person contributes. People who pay more taxes have more voting power. People who pay less taxes have less voting power. If a person pays 1 million in taxes a year, that person's vote is worth 1 million. If a person pays 0 in taxes in a year, that person's vote is worth 0. This way, voting would not be dominated by those who want handouts and bailouts. What do you think?

Well the Electoral College formula cuts that down on Presidential Elections.

But yes, "Mob Rule" voting is on all State and Local level voting.

I think you will be called lots of very predictable and insulting names by the usual crowd

a reply to: allsee4eye

And, I think the U.S. had (long time ago) "rules" about WHO could vote and who could not.

A homeless pauper or derelict may not have been able to vote years ago.

If you are talking about the U.S.A. - then no. Not the way our country was founded.

Just because I make more $$$ than someone else, I should have more votes/control?

Paying more taxes doesn't mean you are smart - making more money doesn't necessarily mean you are smart.

I'd argue that people who make more money are better at getting deductions and overall don't pay that much in taxes, on a percentage basis.

Two people each make $1M a year. The smart one uses the current tax code to pay $10k in taxes, and the 'dumb' one pays $100k in taxes. The dumb one should get 10x the vote?

a reply to: TommyD1966

It's not about smart or dumb. It's about how much they contribute.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Well, that would leave me out as I am retired and have to supplement SS with savings but rarely enough to pay taxes.

My years of paying taxes wouldn't count.

At the same time, don't you think that is what we have now with Corporations being people and move the election by their donations and ads, NGO's etc. Just look at Soro's.

I understand your premise and have thought about it myself.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Normally a homeless man wouldn't be able to vote. Unless they have registered a residence in which case are they really homeless?

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Why should a homeless man on drugs on the streets have the same vote as a hard working billionaire who creates thousands of jobs and pays millions in taxes to contribute to schools, hospitals, science and technology research at universities and so on? It's not fair. In my opinion, a person's vote should be weighted by how much tax that person contributes. People who pay more taxes have more voting power. People who pay less taxes have less voting power. If a person pays 1 million in taxes a year, that person's vote is worth 1 million. If a person pays 0 in taxes in a year, that person's vote is worth 0. This way, voting would not be dominated by those who want handouts and bailouts. What do you think?

I don't know that I necessarily agree with your approach, but I do think voting should be limited. One of the flaws of our system is that everyone can vote imho regardless if they are educated or not. This leads to politicians pandering to uninformed mobs.

I think everyone should have to pass the basic citizenship test that legal immigrants take to become US citizens. The test ask basic questions such as branches of government, etc. Most of the things that anyone should know about our country. Why should we require immigrants to take this test if our own citizens can't even answer the questions?

Maybe only allow tax payers to vote? Maybe only homeowners?

There are a lot of ways to approach this. To be clear, I am not advocating poll taxes or anything done during the Jim Crow era to prevent blacks from voting.

Of course, considering we can't even get people to show their ID to vote, I'm sure none of these ideas will ever be implemented to our own detriment.

a reply to: allsee4eye

We don't live in a democracy we live in/with a Representative government (republic).

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Why should a homeless man on drugs on the streets have the same vote as a hard working billionaire who creates thousands of jobs and pays millions in taxes to contribute to schools, hospitals, science and technology research at universities and so on? It's not fair. In my opinion, a person's vote should be weighted by how much tax that person contributes. People who pay more taxes have more voting power. People who pay less taxes have less voting power. If a person pays 1 million in taxes a year, that person's vote is worth 1 million. If a person pays 0 in taxes in a year, that person's vote is worth 0. This way, voting would not be dominated by those who want handouts and bailouts. What do you think?

Because then you end up having laws that only benefit the rich and powerful, making it impossible for anyone to achieve success.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: TommyD1966

It's not about smart or dumb. It's about how much they contribute.

Well, being selfish I agree. I'd get more votes than the average Joe.

However, you are just proposing oligarchy.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison and a couple of others would have total control.

Only tall, good looking people should be able to vote.

Because chicks dig tall good looking voters.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Only tall, good looking people should be able to vote.

Because chicks dig tall good looking voters.

Well, I 'm tall. Do I get half a vote?

The ideas you hold get worse and worse.

Like seriously you seem to have the political views of a French Aristocrat circa 1750...

Also I chuckled at "hard working billionaire". Great joke.

Well back when the country was founded I think you had the be a land owning white male. Now I don't think it is fair to discriminate based on sex or race, but having some skin in the game isn't a bad idea. To have people who are uninformed failures at life count just as much as someone who has some brains and shows success in their life just makes no sense. If you step back and look at it you can see how on all fronts the system is geared to churning out uneducated unsuccessful people who really have no skin in the game. Those people are easily bamboozled and generally have a hand out for freebies, maybe not all but most. Those are the ones the politicians target because its easy...just promise free stuff and talk slick about helping them and you're in. All the while they suppress any notion of sense from those with a head on the shoulders that still has brains in it. Of course this wouldn't apply the the smart people that play the game the same...ie corps and billionaires.

Well that got a little rambly but I think you can get the gist of my point.

a reply to: allsee4eye

It used to be that way here in the US a very long time ago.

There were laws that said the only people who could vote were males who were property owners.

Not a male? Do not own any property? Then you could not vote.

Good news is we changed things:

The 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 15th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

So, what you are saying is we should get rid of the 15th Amendment, and make it to where only people who have money are allowed to vote.

Worse: you want to make it to where the super elite decide everything, and only they decide anything.

Of course some will argue that it's that way now with lobbying and bribes......and I can't prove them wrong.

We don't need to change our voting laws.

We need to change how long anyone can be in office......not just POTUS.

Term limits, for everyone, including judges, especially the SCOTUS.

Term limits. It would solve a LOT of problems.

a reply to: allsee4eye

a lot of older homeless people use to be ex military (estimated around 65% in 2010). are you saying that there opinions on how the country should be ran and by whom is none of there business? You think someone who was sent off to fight for you and the rest of us should have no say just cause some war screwed up there mind and they ended up homeless? i think you and everyone else who has a problem with homeless people get out there and help them and stop looking down on them.

a reply to: allsee4eye

We have this document that lays down the foundation of our Nation.

It says something along the lines of: . All men are created equal... Blah blah blah... We find these truths to be self evident.

Something like that.

It's called campaign finance. Hillary had about $1.5 BILLION (with a B) in slush funds thrown at her last year. The 1%'ers get enough say as it is.