Voting allocation plan

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@Jezcoe

@Call_me_Ishmael

Those who take more than they give should have their vote withheld until they give more than they take. Then they get their votes back…all of them from the past as well. Incentive to be productive.

In would be fine with kicking old people off the voter rolls also.

Cumulative giving minus cumulative taking over their years would be the metric. Many “old people” would be fine.

[BillBrown]

@Jezcoe

@Call_me_Ishmael

Those who take more than they give should have their vote withheld until they give more than they take. Then they get their votes back…all of them from the past as well. Incentive to be productive.

In would be fine with kicking old people off the voter rolls also.

No one would be kicked off the voter rolls.
Where are you getting this stuff? Making it up?

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@BillBrown

@Jezcoe

@Call_me_Ishmael

Those who take more than they give should have their vote withheld until they give more than they take. Then they get their votes back…all of them from the past as well. Incentive to be productive.

In would be fine with kicking old people off the voter rolls also.

No one would be kicked off the voter rolls.
Where are you getting this stuff? Making it up?

Ummm… yes. I’m making up a hypothetical voting rule. I did not like yours. Nothing personal.

[highroller]

I disagree. Most baby boomers have never contributed more than they took. The entire generation has survived off of their parents and societies wealth or borrowed from the future generations wealth.

No votes for them.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@calirepub

What we need is a citizenship test.

How about a strawman test. Kinda like those smoking questions when you get medical insurance.

“Have you posted a strawman within the past 12 months?”

If yes, you must wait to vote until you have kicked the strawman habit.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@highroller

I disagree. Most baby boomers have never contributed more than they took. The entire generation has survived off of their parents and societies wealth or borrowed from the future generations wealth.

No votes for them.

If that’s how the numbers fall out, OK. But it would be a separate calculation for each individual… not one for classes of people.

[highroller]

I don’t know. I know too many baby boomers that look like they may have contributed more money to the government on paper, but when you look at what they should have paid in taxes vs what the federal government has borrowed since they came of age, it shows they just borrowed the money from their children.

How would you break out government borrowings for citizens vs individual tax payments?

[dantes]

Not always. See Jared Kushner.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@highroller

I don’t know. I know too many baby boomers that look like they may have contributed more money to the government on paper, but when you look at what they should have paid in taxes vs what the federal government has borrowed since they came of age, it shows they just borrowed the money from their children.

How would you break out government borrowings for citizens vs individual tax payments?

With your criteria, no one would vote.

[calirepub]

Sounds like a good plan.

[dantes]

Good. Voting just leads to mob rule.

[WorldWatcher]

@Medicswife2002

I disagree with anybody getting more than one vote. But if the wealthy only represent the top 1 - 2 % of the population then giving them an extra vote wouldn’t make that much of a difference, right?

He didn’t say wealthy at only 1-2%

He said top 25%

Just clarity on the percentages being proposed.

.>>>>

[Jezcoe]

@Call_me_Ishmael

@Jezcoe

@Call_me_Ishmael

Those who take more than they give should have their vote withheld until they give more than they take. Then they get their votes back…all of them from the past as well. Incentive to be productive.

In would be fine with kicking old people off the voter rolls also.

Cumulative giving minus cumulative taking over their years would be the metric. Many “old people” would be fine.

Oh. Now it is conditional.

This system is getting really complicated.

Best to limiting it to landowners.

[Jezcoe]

@BillBrown

@Jezcoe

@Call_me_Ishmael

Those who take more than they give should have their vote withheld until they give more than they take. Then they get their votes back…all of them from the past as well. Incentive to be productive.

In would be fine with kicking old people off the voter rolls also.

No one would be kicked off the voter rolls.
Where are you getting this stuff? Making it up?

Replying to someone else’s stupid idea… not the one in the OP

[adroit]

@BillBrown

Back in the 1960s, oil tycoon H.L. Hunt published a plan to change the voting laws. It would have required a constitutional amendment.
I thought it was a good idea. I still do.

1. Everyone 18 and above gets at least one vote.
2. Over 21 gets an additional vote.
3. The upper 25% individual income tax payers get an additional vote.

I like it, but it’ll never happen.

Agreed, if:

Everyone older than 55 gets -1 votes.
Everyone older than 65 gets -2 votes.
Everyone older than 80 gets no votes as they are actuarially past their expiration date.

[LouC]

@BillBrown

@LouC

@BillBrown

Back in the 1960s, oil tycoon H.L. Hunt published a plan to change the voting laws. It would have required a constitutional amendment.
I thought it was a good idea. I still do.

1. Everyone 18 and above gets at least one vote.
2. Over 21 gets an additional vote.
3. The upper 25% individual income tax payers get an additional vote.

I like it, but it’ll never happen.

Most people do like their ideas, no matter how idiotic they are.

It’s not my idea.

But you still like the idiotic idea. So there is that.

[Oryx]

@Jezcoe

I know it seems that we are slowly marching towards an oligarchy…

I think we’ve been there for decades.

[Jezcoe]

@Oryx

@Jezcoe

I know it seems that we are slowly marching towards an oligarchy…

I think we’ve been there for decades.

Maybe.

But I am trying to have some hope.

[BillBrown]

@LouC

@BillBrown

@LouC

@BillBrown

Back in the 1960s, oil tycoon H.L. Hunt published a plan to change the voting laws. It would have required a constitutional amendment.
I thought it was a good idea. I still do.

1. Everyone 18 and above gets at least one vote.
2. Over 21 gets an additional vote.
3. The upper 25% individual income tax payers get an additional vote.

I like it, but it’ll never happen.

Most people do like their ideas, no matter how idiotic they are.

It’s not my idea.

But you still like the idiotic idea. So there is that.

But that’s not what you said. So there is that.

[Samson_Corwell]

@BillBrown

Back in the 1960s, oil tycoon H.L. Hunt published a plan to change the voting laws. It would have required a constitutional amendment.
I thought it was a good idea. I still do.

1. Everyone 18 and above gets at least one vote.
2. Over 21 gets an additional vote.
3. The upper 25% individual income tax payers get an additional vote.

I like it, but it’ll never happen.

Why should people with higher incomes have more votes?