In article , "DGDevin" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

In article , Swingman
wrote:

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of
only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that **** off
the politicians and lobbyist.

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would
disenfranchise
the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to
vote.
That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a
net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government
handouts.

So if through no fault of yours you can no longer work (say due to illness)
and you receive public assistance, you would no longer be allowed to vote?
That strikes me as pointlessly unfair.

I'd certainly go along with making exceptions for "no fault of your own"
cases, perhaps assessing whether an individual is a net taxpayer or a net
leech on the basis of a five-year moving average. But I don't think that
anyone who is able to work, but simply refuses to, has any claim on either
society's resources or its decision-making processes.

How about the right to vote being contingent on passing a modest current
affairs test? If you can't provide one-paragraph outlines of four out of
seven major municipal issues and outline the positions of the candidates for
mayor and city council then you can't vote (instead you're required to spend
the day helping at a polling place or doing some other work of value to the
community--say picking up trash in the park with a sign on your back that
you're too ignorant to vote). At least then your eligibility is determined
by something you have control over. Citizens not able to communicate in
English would get *one* pass on that and be able to take the test in Spanish
or whatever--but in four years they test in English or they don't vote.
Naturally provisions would be made for the illiterate, the blind et al.

No argument there at all. I'm in favor of all of that.

However I'd also make voting mandatory, so those who can't be bothered to
acquaint themselves with the issues to a reasonable degree would still have
to give up a day of public service--intentional ignorance would not get them
off the hook.

The first needs to be in place before instituting the second. We have enough
of a problem now with uninformed, ignorant voters without *requiring* them to
vote. Thank goodness that a large number of the uninformed and ignorant are
apathetic as well -- I prefer that those people not vote.