It’s based on their transitory nature.
Ah no, I had to vote for years via absentee ballots because military barracks and living on ships didn’t qualify as a permeant residence.
So no, transitory status does not mean vote locally.
WW
So those who cannot work are disenfranchised? The physically disabled? Those in between jobs? Those who are laid off and it’s taking time for them to get back to work?
I believe in simplicity. If you are a proven citizen, you get to vote. If you are not a citizen, you do not get to vote.
The losers:
An inheritor?
A lotto winner?
Someone who earned $10,000,00 in 5 years and retired?
The winners:
Someone who “worked” for their mom for 1 cent an hour 100 hours a week for life.
This policy is more sentiment than good idea.
That’s your thing. Mine is ensuring that those who have the most invested- and I mean effort, not money - get a bigger vote on how the fruits of that effort are spent. I believe their vote will be more responsible in how the government spends its resources.
Again… the poor workers and rich workers get the same vote .
Not interested in the few examples you can come up with. There would be tax laws to prevent the absurd “1 cent for mom” cases.
The weighting I mentioned - on the fly, in a forum, sitting in my underwear - was cumulative. Maybe I shoulda spent a year with a team and published a comprehensive paper.
No. The summary I posted is close enough.
It’s all downhill from here 
few? Think again.
If you obtain you living from owning a resource: land minerals, equipment, capital, invention, fame you are out of luck.
Or If you obtain your living with less specific paid “hours” you are out of luck.
And the tax laws you speak of will be written by those with the most votes. Once a small advantage is established it will be increased and maintained by designing that tax law to emphasized their members “hours” and eliminate their oppositions “hours”.
This idea does not lead to a good place. It is a sentiment presented as a gimmicky policy.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s a crap idea designed for a renewed aristocracy.
Sure. What we have today - takers voting to take more from those who are producers - is gonna lead to a good place. Sure.
1 Like
Actually I viewed it as a crap idea designed to troll the tread.
WW
It can do both👍
“Aristocracy”… those who have worked , regardless of being rich or poor. Nonsense. You just changed the meaning of “Aristocracy”
My post was on topic. Your’s is directed at me and attempts to denigrate me as a troll. So who is really the troll?
The idea is to get the the best possible place based on the incontrovertible realities of human nature. Best may not be good at all.
The world has tried to base government on: brute force, blood lineage, parliamentarianism, democracy, theocracy, communism, socialism, … etc… and all have produced bad results mixed with some good results
So far I favor our system and when I compare your proposal to what we have I do not see it improving things.
I don’t see a lot of “voter rights” being offered.
Looks more like “voter processes”.
votes by dead constituents should only be counted by hanging chad counters…
counters of absentee votes and their ballots must be present…
This is very much on point!
I’m fine with a federally funded voter ID, as long as it is coupled with instant registration, and being a mandate, funded with a slight increase in the cap gains tax.
1 Like
I would be for using official state I’d, just like you need to drive in my state. I also would be for limiting voting by mail to listed limited circumstances as mass email voting can not be verified as independent of pressure.
But that’s what I would want for my state. I wouldn’t presume to suggest what the legislatures of other states should do…
