I find it sad that you live in a country where people don't laugh in your face for suggesting that.

@vic -> i do believe that sort of lack of voting rights would be cause for revolution by lots of people. especially students.... who typically aren't net taxpayers and have been known to protest/riot/rebel when they feel they aren't receiving representation.

the "natural selection" factors of the non-net taxpayers means they usually vote less because of structural reasons so I don't see your idea as being better than the current system if it was to be implemented. it's just bad on so many levels.

what I would prefer to see is a national holiday for elections and everyone MUST vote or receive a fine/penalty (enforced at tax time). Do advanced polling and if you vote early you can just take a day off with no obligations. the best way to improve the electoral system is by increasing participation and understanding of the system.

My system would've disenfranchised me several times. Doesn't hurt my feelings. We are supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy.

Your system will never come to pass, and demographics will likely spell the end of the Republican party within a generation. Winning this election may well be the worst thing that could possibly have happened to the Republican party, as this'll push their strategists to double down on their current tactics of obstruction, denial, and stalling while continuing to alienate younger voters, women, and minorities.

Keep trying to exclude people rather than reaching out, and see where it gets you.

I don't really agree with this. the two parties will always pass power back and forth, it's just natural, when people see the economy not doing well or are unhappy about wars or whatever, they flip from one "choice" back to the other, at least enough to turn the election... republican party may be behind in terms of equality etc but if that becomes untenable they'll simply evolve. Things aren't going to change, ever, unless we get to an economic collapse, which will surely happen eventually. I mean just look, republicans have done nothing of note in the past few years, but the election flips back to them this time around because enough people are disgruntled currently to make it happen

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

shirley you can't be serious.

but if you are.. i repeat:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

agreed. it's alarming that the GOP can't see that. but oh well, i'm not complaining :)

The writing has been on the wall for years, yet the Republican strategy is still to suppress turnout and maintain their relevance by gerrymandering districts. This was crystal clear in 2012 when looking at the electoral math, and some of the "solutions" proposed by Republicans which included things like having electoral votes distributed by congressional district rather than by popular vote.

When do they turn the corner and decide to be more open, and how do they reconcile that with their current base, which wants exactly the opposite? They're backing themselves into a corner, and I honestly don't know how they're going to get out of it.

ah, i think you guys are naive. republicans arent going anywhere. nothing is changing ever.

Trife: You should be scared as hell. Yes, the Republican party may be a cancer but that doesn't mean the Democrats are the cure. I wouldn't call what the Democrats have now a real opposition, but without some credible check on them, I have absolutely no faith in their ability to function.

I think the risk of the US political system completely disintegrating is real, because a two party system doesn't function without two parties and one of them is currently heading straight into the ground. I don't necessarily think it is likely, but it is real all the same.

i agree w/ this though lol. democrats are garbage, theyre republican lite, they've slowly shifted more and more right, and will continuously because that's where the money is, and theyll throw out just enough populist rhetoric to remain a "counter" to the republicans. when it comes to civil rights sort of stuff i think republicans will shift left on gay weddings or w/e fluff but liberals are garbage

blid: Where I live, I've seen some fairly major political changes in my lifetime. One of the two major parties collapsed, which led to a situation where the other major party had no effective opposition, which led to a situation where they became corrupt and entitled and subsequently collapsed themselves.

We've had multiple minority governments over the past 15 years after having I think two in the history of the country prior to that, and it is basically accepted at this point that a minority government is probably going to be a normal outcome for the near future. One significant party was formed and effectively destroyed, while the remains of the first collapsed party took over a decade to sort themselves out and re-emerge as something new.

Our perspectives on this are a little different, I think.

sounds like you have a different electoral system over there. i dont see it happening here, at all.

all the media as well as the ballot system is monopolized by the two-party system. say the republicans really did "collapse" and dems rode in taking 70% of both houses + the presidency. this would only last until the economy's next down cycle and then everyone will go "hmmm looks like these democrats don't know how to govern" and the republicans will enjoy a counter surge

Do you guys just not remember 10 years ago that it was the Democrats who were "on the road to oblivion" because of "electoral math" and "no actual policies?" Blid is 100% correct that neither party is going anywhere.

Those of you ascribing a Republican affiliation to me are wrong. I am a registered independent and have not voted for a Republican candidate for president since 2000, going 3rd party every time since then.

iccyh, what country are you in?

i want to go back to VR's system lol...doesn't matter if it would have disenfranchised you and you don't care. people would care. putting aside the fact that you apparently don't think voting should be a human right or etc etc youre talking about disenfranchising millions of people, and there will be millions of people born into poverty who will never in their life have the right to vote. then, meanwhile, the "net providers" or whatever you call them start saying boy i dont like supporting people that dont contribute and start removing these peoples social safety nets, and yet they cant even vote to do anything about it? not to mention the support theyd get in universities like pang was saying, and these university students themselves not being able to vote in many cases would feel a strong connection to this underclass... i literally think your plan would lead to a revolution and overthrow of the gov't hahaha. that or martial law being declared and bunches of running street battles and oppression and deaths. insanity~

blid: The electoral system was and is very similar, as it happens.

Vic: Uh, no. I've no recollection of that at all. What I remember is that in 2000, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote in a damn close election that ended up referred to the Supreme Court, then in 2004 Kerry lost to an incumbent while the country was still reeling from what happened in 2001 and was on war footing.

...and the Republicans swept both houses of congress, and increased their margin in the governor's mansions, and took a majority of state legislatures. Basically just like the other day, only with a president thrown in for good measure.

blid, I do believe that voting is a responsibility, and people don't treat it as such. Folks who can't name the candidates aren't expressing a political opinion when they vote. Folks who only vote for which party they think will give them a handout aren't expressing a political opinion. It was Jefferson who said Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner - we need to find a way to sensibly restrict the franchise to people who are incentivized to vote for the good of the country. It's not easy, and I have kicked around a lot of different ideas in thought experiments, but this is the one that eventually made the most sense to me.

I disagree with your premise that we would develop a class of the permanently disenfranchised. Seniors and younger people would mostly not get to vote, middle age wage earners mostly would. People who take advantage of a bunch of tax loopholes would not. Realistically it will never happen, like a pure communism. We will never implement this system in today's world. That doesn't make it a bad ideal. I do have other ideas on how to avoid "rigging the system" but since I'm sure we are agreed this is just philosophical rambling at this point (since I'm not on the verge of crossing the Rubicon with my army at my back), I will spare you the details.

It is a horrible idea and you're a pretty horrible person for suggesting that money is criteria that matters most when deciding who votes. There are so many problems with what you're suggesting that it is mind numbing to think that you can't see them; there is absolutely no point in doing anything but laughing.

sure they are. why would you say they arent? theyre voting for the party that is more likely to look after their self-interest, which is a rational decision. just like richer people voting for republicans in the hopes of getting lower taxes are. your mindset is really politicized imo, and you're not looking at this objectively.

it IS a bad ideal. it disenfranchises tens of millions of people and would lead to political upheaval and probably violence. the only thing it's good for is getting the gov't overthrown which honestly may not be a terrible thing but it would be at great cost

Everything already leads to political upheaval, and a police officer shooting someone who attacked him leads to violence. Not everybody deserves a vote. I don't care what you say about me, it is true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCipmnYCKB0 None of the people in that interview segment deserve a vote. Their voice should not carry as much weight as yours or mine because they didn't bother to do the basic, bare minimum of educating themselves about their most important civic duty.

Maybe it should be more like jury duty, where we pull a % of the population into a room and make them listen to appeals from the candidates.

(that last bit wasn't serious, in case the sarcasm meter is broken in here)

Interesting bit of history. The USA was NOT founded with "universal franchise" as part of our fabric, as I am sure most know. Note that all references to "republican" mean little r, the GOP didn't exist before 1854.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/23b.asp

The policy you're advocating for is racist, sexist, ageist, and ableist, dude.

It is horrible, and you're pretty horrible for suggesting it.

You left out the most important "ist" - classist.

So propose a better one, because you have yet to refute my point that universal franchise is bad for the country. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

Tragedy of the commons is an econ 101 (read as: simplified for easy consumption) example for why private property is a good idea, not a reason to exclude people from public life.

There, refuted.

Something better? How about the status quo? I hate the status quo, but it is infinitely better than your suggestion.

blid: I don't know how much of a fan I am of viewing things through that particular lens.

He's proposing poor people not be able to vote! And you won't call it classist? You'd rather call it by all those liberal buzz words instead?

I am certain each one of those "liberal buzz words" is actually a real thing which I am able to discuss and articulate, where as class is a something I am less sure of. You can't generally can't change your race, sex, age, or disability while class seems to be something far less permanent.

iccyh, you still haven't told me what country you're in.

Those "liberal buzz words" actually significantly undermine your credibility in any real exchange of ideas precisely because they have become such bigtime buzzwords. Liberals toss around accusations of racism while operating under the assumption that non-whites can't get ahead in society without liberal help, as just one example, making them the actual racists. Generally speaking, in actual intelligent debate (and not LCD voter pandering) as soon as any of those terms are introduced the other side wins. It's sort of like Godwin's law.

You also didn't actually refute my point. The tragedy of the commons does indeed extend to voting; if you allow people to debase the system they will vote for their own short term welfare even though it might be detrimental to the majority and even themselves in the long term.

I am curious, did you even watch the YouTube link I posted? I used that one because I could remember it off the top of my head, I am sure you can find equally ridiculous examples of the other side. The point is, the people in that video have neglected their civic duty in terms of voting. Given that, why should their vote count?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. "

-origin disputed

Educate.
The Obama Phone Lady Wakes Up: http://youtu.be/dLZuKGTZlEY

coward

Heston, that link is gold :-)

Yeah, Heston, great link bro. Neatly encapsulates what I'm talking about. People need to take voting seriously before they should be allowed to vote.

You talk about intelligent debate but you have no actual willingness to examine what's being said. You call things "buzzwords" without making any attempt to understand the what they mean or the concepts they encapsulate. You view things through liberal/conservative rather than examining ideas on their own merits.

Your proposal would hurt women, minorities, people with disabilities, and the young especially. These are groups that often have to fight to get their voices heard, and you're proposing something that would limit their ability to participate politically because you think that people with money are better able to make decisions about their welfare than they are. That is horrible, and ugly.

Instead of looking at the impact of what you're actually suggesting, you shrug it off because I've used "buzzwords". That's as shallow as you can possibly get.

The tragedy of the commons is only peripherally related to voting. It is said that common resources tend to get overused as people value the use of the resource in the near term over the preservation of the resource for the long term. As far as I am aware, this is a little morality story that gets used when people want to dumb down complex ideas and paint things like communal property or individual choice in a negative light and is very, very debatable rather than something to be cited to end debate because everyone agrees on it.

blid: If you want to convince me of something, you're not exactly doing a great job. If you're wanting to be an asshole, you're not exactly doing a great job of that either. Sub-par all around, you need some work.

VR is proposing a system designed with the explicit intention of denying people who receive welfare the right to vote, and you're not willing to call it classist. that is peak liberalism. i dunno. sorry if im not being enough of an asshole or if yoiure not feeling what im putting down but i just have onthing else to say, it's staring u right in the face and u deny it

Viewing things through the lens of class makes more sense in a system where social mobility is extremely limited and has been for generations. I don't know (and I mean that truthfully, I don't know enough about this) if that is really applicable in the US and if it is the best way to examine things.

it is.

Unmarried childless women earn 8% more than unmarried childless men in America. One tweak (and again, I haven't laid out all the safeguards I feel are necessary cuz there's more than a couple, just as with any system) - married filing jointly qualifies both. Boom, done. Women are not marginalized (which is the word you are looking for here).

How would it hurt minorities? Are you saying that minorities need more handouts? Racist prick.

How would it hurt the disabled? You might have noticed, they are not exactly a huge voting bloc but they have plenty of laws on the books to protect them.

Too bad for the young. If they want to participate get a job and pay taxes. I did.

For the record, the times I would have been excluded from voting were when I claimed the lifetime learning credit against my tuition (paid out of pocket) and the child tax credit in the same years. That happened twice (you can only claim the lifetime learning credit twice), and my refund exceeded my contributions both times. Which is a whole other problem.

You are correct though in your assertion to blid that the USA is the worst country ever to look at things as "classist," as we have demonstrated historically the greatest social mobility ever seen. That doesn't even matter though, you don't have to make very much money to pay some freaking taxes.

Neither one of you has addressed the issue that I have repeatedly asked you to address, which is that voters do not take their civic duty seriously enough. Universal franchise has degraded the value of a vote, and people treat it as a valueless thing. This is a problem. It is a threat to the integrity of our nation and government. In both Rome and Athens increased franchise led to decisions contrary to established law, and decisions destructive to the future of the state. Iccyh did, however, totally miss the point of the tragedy of the commons in relation to voting. The nation is our commons, and the tragedy is that people will happily throw away the long term interests of the nation for a perceived short term gain. As in the case of things like the welfare state, the gains are frequently illusory and/or actually counterproductive even to the people they appear to help.

So, how would either of you address the problem of voter apathy/ignorance/irresponsibility?

And iccyh, are you ever going to tell me what country you're in? Or are you going to keep trying to lecture me on economics?

I'm not going to bother to reply past this. Your responses and solutions are laughable, and the only appropriate response is to laugh.

As I said earlier, this is troll-level at best.

Wow Vic should write his own treatise on this subject! :p

better idea (I think I posted this on another thread) to increase voter engagement -> make election day a national holiday and require people to vote. If they don't, give them a financial penalty enforced when they file their taxes.

Run early polls that people can go to before voting day and if you vote ahead of time you just get a free day off to do whatever.

election day a national holiday? yes. but you prob shouldnt require people to vote, people who dont want to be there arent going to care about what theyre voting

ahahahahahaha

im still laughing at this

lol you seriously think that's a good legit idea

hahahahahahah

other VicRattlehead proposed voting requirements

1) only white males can vote
or
2) only fox news viewers can vote
or
3) only christians can vote
or
4) only net taxpayers can vote, but they have to take a on the spot drug test before they can vote

all equally as smart as your original suggestion. lol

...Except that people a lot smarter than us set up this country with a system not far off from what I am talking about, and for the same reasons. Keep burying your head in the sand, though, that will probably make things better.

Pang, I am all for making it a holiday. Making people pay not to vote doesn't encourage people to actually engage and make informed voting choices though.

you had me with one, kept me with two, lost me at three you anti semitic sister kisser and id never pass a drug test in my life, so you lost at four also

lol

Why argue american politics with non americans? Their opinion and insite is worthless. Besides, trife types are fine with having the dumb fluff and buttfluffer vote. Its their only platforms, besides murdering unborn babies....

The weather channel has more viewers than CNN, just saying...