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.


Or it becomes a powerful motivation to become productive again. As others
recommended, a 5 year moving average or other mechanisms could address this.

This is rapidly becoming more than an academic exercise. We are coming
very close to the point where less than 50% of taxpayers will be paying
nearly 100% of income taxes. When we swing past that point, the majority
being non-payers will view the minority as their source of funding and
government largess. That's going to result in a rapid downward spiral as
the dependent class starts voting for those who promise the most and the
productive class stops being so productive because the results of their
labors are being taken from them to the point it is no longer worth the
effort.


.... snip
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham