Who should be allowed to vote?

[Charles Anthony]

When do we start giving 'corporations' a vote?

We should.

Is that conditional on a tax-contribution-based democracy or would you have them vote now?

[Renegade]

When do we start giving 'corporations' a vote?

We should.

Is that conditional on a tax-contribution-based democracy or would you have them vote now?

My answer was predicated on it be based upon tax-contribution. Even foreign tax payers have a a stake in our government, so they too should have a say.

While I see some justification that they should vote now, I think the system as is is so flawed that a small incremental change such as this does little to adress the overall issues.

Here's another thought: Kids should have a vote. They are stakeholders in the system and have interests which must be protected, so give them a vote. However, since they are not deemed sufficiently capable of making such a decision, my view is that the parents or guardian should exercise that vote on the kids behalf.

[Remiel]

Are you serious, Renegade? Really? Or are you just trying to annoy the heck out of us?

Allowing parents to vote for their children? When a ten year old who murders another person has that permanently on their criminal record, then, and ONLY THEN, would I even CONSIDER allowing ten year olds to have a vote.

And you have misstepped. Have you never heard of a restaurant that requires men to wear a proper jacket? However superfluous it may be, it is a requirement of " fitness " other than being able to pay the bill.

[Renegade]

Are you serious, Renegade? Really? Or are you just trying to annoy the heck out of us?

Us?? Which "us" do you speak for besides yourself? Or is that the royal "us"? And, yes, I'm serious.

Allowing parents to vote for their children? When a ten year old who murders another person has that permanently on their criminal record, then, and ONLY THEN, would I even CONSIDER allowing ten year olds to have a vote.

Parents bear at least to a certain extent responsibility for the actions of their children. If my child dents my neighbours car, I am liable to pay for it. We do not expect the neighbour to have to sue the child. We entrust parents to make some decisions on behalf of their children, but also they must bear some responsibility for their actions.

My point on having kids vote is that kids are members of society too. Their interest are not represented proportionate to their numbers. Today, their interests are only represented by the single vote each parent has. Let me phrase it another way, even in the one-person-one-vote system parents should have proportionally more voting power because they represent the votes of more individuals than themselves alone.

And you have misstepped. Have you never heard of a restaurant that requires men to wear a proper jacket? However superfluous it may be, it is a requirement of " fitness " other than being able to pay the bill.

It was an analogy. The example was not intended to cover evey case. Of course a resturant will have a set of prerequisites of its customers. Those prerequisites are that you come dressed appropriately that you behave appropriately while you are there, and I'm sure there are others. These requirements are so BASIC that they are assumed. When you call a resturant to book a reservation, they don't list prerequisites such as you must come clothed, they assume it. Of course if you didn't you wouldn't be served.

Similarly there are basic requirements for voters which I didnt' mention, such as a voter should be sane and alive. I didn't mention them because they are so basic as to be assumed.

Perhaps you can explain to me what fitness test we have today for voters and why imposing the additional condition of making a financial contribution via their taxes, makes them any less fit as a voter?

[Remiel]

You are being misleading. I didn't say that paying taxes made anyone less fit to vote, I said paying more taxes didn't make any more fit to vote.

Actually, consider this.

A person makes $100,000 a year for three years, and then for whatever reason, being injury, sickness, or attitude, stops working. One year, after they stopped working, there is an election. Another person makes $75,000 a year for all four years.

How exactly would you reconcile the the first person with the second, under your system, where fitness to vote is based on money, and on making a contribution? Does the first person deserve to vote even though they are not making a financial contribution to the economy? If so, how do you calculate how many votes they get? What there is another election six months after that, and no taxes have been filed at all in that time? But perhaps a third person made it big in those six months, and deserves more votes, but how do you determine he gets them?

The kind of system you are proposing would be like a tax on society all by its own, producing a massive electoral beaurocracy, far beyond anything we pay now for elections.

[Renegade]

You are being misleading. I didn't say that paying taxes made anyone less fit to vote, I said paying more taxes didn't make any more fit to vote.

And I explained why they are. In essence they are more fit because they have a financial stake in the system

[Remiel]

There are only two kinds of stakes in the system. Everything or nothing. A person who makes $90,000 a year doesn't have a larger stake than a person who makes $50,000 a year because if they are both all in.

[Renegade]

There are only two kinds of stakes in the system. Everything or nothing. A person who makes $90,000 a year doesn't have a larger stake than a person who makes $50,000 a year because if they are both all in.

It is not binary at all. A government decision to raise taxes or cut taxes has a greater financial impact in absolute amounts on those who contribute more. Those who contribute nothing, in essence pay no price for the largesse of government, and so should not be given a say until such time as they can contribute.

As an aside, just because one makes more, it is not automatic that they contribute more.

[Charles Anthony]

Those who contribute nothing, in essence pay no price for the largesse of government, and so should not be given a say until such time as they can contribute.

Are you sure you want government?

[Renegade]

Those who contribute nothing, in essence pay no price for the largesse of government, and so should not be given a say until such time as they can contribute.

Are you sure you want government?

No I absolutely don't, however, I'm not convinced that government can be completely eliminated. I'd settle for minimial government.

[Black Dog]

Those who contribute nothing, in essence pay no price for the largesse of government, and so should not be given a say until such time as they can contribute.

I have a serious problem with tax contributions as a sole measure of someone's worth or using income as a guage of intellect or good sense. It's a deeply reductionist viewpoint.

I think every individual who has a stake in the actions of the government should get to vote. And, since every citizen has a stake, every citizen gets a vote. Period.

[Renegade]

I have a serious problem with tax contributions as a sole measure of someone's worth or using income as a guage of intellect or good sense. It's a deeply reductionist viewpoint.

Personally I don't see tax contributions as a measure of someones worth or as a guage of intellect. I dont' know if somehow I've implied that I did, but that is incorrect. I see tax contribution as a gate to participate in the fiscal decisions of government, which is very different than measuring their worth or guaging their intellect.

I think every individual who has a stake in the actions of the government should get to vote. And, since every citizen has a stake, every citizen gets a vote. Period.

More than citizens have a stake in the actions of government. For example foreign investors have a stake. Residents of other countries recieveing Canadian foreign aid have a stake. Do you think they should get a vote too?

[Black Dog]

More than citizens have a stake in the actions of government. For example foreign investors have a stake. Residents of other countries recieveing Canadian foreign aid have a stake. Do you think they should get a vote too?

Foreign investors can-and do-vote with their dollars. But since their stake is limited soley to the financial realms, so too should their level of influence.

[Renegade]

More than citizens have a stake in the actions of government. For example foreign investors have a stake. Residents of other countries recieveing Canadian foreign aid have a stake. Do you think they should get a vote too?

Foreign investors can-and do-vote with their dollars. But since their stake is limited soley to the financial realms, so too should their level of influence.

Unfortunately taxpayers are captive and don't have the same ability to vote with their dollars that a foreign investor does. What I'm proposing that taxpayers do get the level of influence that their contribution warrants.

Since you are willing to partition off certain stakeholders and give them different levels of influence depending upon the stake they hold, why the objection to partition off taxpayers and give them influence over the stake they hold?

[Black Dog]

Unfortunately taxpayers are captive and don't have the same ability to vote with their dollars that a foreign investor does. What I'm proposing that taxpayers do get the level of influence that their contribution warrants.

So how much is one vote worth?

Since you are willing to partition off certain stakeholders and give them different levels of influence depending upon the stake they hold, why the objection to partition off taxpayers and give them influence over the stake they hold?

Because you can argue that damn near every single person on the planet is a "stakeholder". Gotta draw a line somewhere and, hey, this "citizenship" thing seems to be a good place to start as any.

Also: I'm not arguing for different levels of influence. I'm arguing for one single level: one person, one vote.

[Renegade]

So how much is one vote worth?

It is not a question of how much a vote is worth, because a vote is notional concept without value. Its a question of how many votes does each stakeholder get. In my view, they should get one vote per dollar of tax contribution.

Because you can argue that damn near every single person on the planet is a "stakeholder". Gotta draw a line somewhere and, hey, this "citizenship" thing seems to be a good place to start as any.

Exactly! So your original position that all people should have votes because they are all stakeholders is meaningless since in essence everyone on the planet is a "stakeholder".

You draw the line at citizenship. I draw it at taxpayer. Why is one right and one wrong?

Also: I'm not arguing for different levels of influence. I'm arguing for one single level: one person, one vote.

Yes I know. But I am. Not all stakeholders have the same amount at stake that a one person-one vote system does not reflect.

[Black Dog]

It is not a question of how much a vote is worth, because a vote is notional concept without value. Its a question of how many votes does each stakeholder get. In my view, they should get one vote per dollar of tax contribution.

Yeah that wouldn't make counting the bastards a pain at all. Not to mention how one would determine how many votes one has earned. Are we talking income tax alone or are others included?

Exactly! So your original position that all people should have votes because they are all stakeholders is meaningless since in essence everyone on the planet is a "stakeholder".

You draw the line at citizenship. I draw it at taxpayer. Why is one right and one wrong?

Because-duh-I'm right.

Yes I know. But I am. Not all stakeholders have the same amount at stake that a one person-one vote system does not reflect.

But that's not neccesarily reflected in how much someone pays in taxes. To go to the o.p.: I would argue Argus's welfare-dependant drunk brother has a far greater stake than someone in a comfy tax braket.

[cybercoma]

Those who contribute nothing, in essence pay no price for the largesse of government, and so should not be given a say until such time as they can contribute.

I have a serious problem with tax contributions as a sole measure of someone's worth or using income as a guage of intellect or good sense. It's a deeply reductionist viewpoint.

I think every individual who has a stake in the actions of the government should get to vote. And, since every citizen has a stake, every citizen gets a vote. Period.

I'm glad someone saw the stupidity of the suggestions in my post for what they were: an illustration of how moronic it is to give someone a higher stake because they pay more tax.

[cybercoma]

How do you even begin to prove that those who pay more taxes have more to lose by the government raising tax?

Sure, in flat out dollar comparison it is more money, but what affect that has on the person's standard of living is not the same.

If someone making $30,000/year pays $6,000 to the government an increase is going to make a bigger difference to them than someone making $375,000/year paying $100,000 to the government. Oh damn, they're only left with $275,000....how earth shattering.

Just using random numbers, but you get my point. Someone just above the poverty line has more to lose than someone WELL above.

[August1991]

This is a long thread and I have only read parts of it.

I'm tempted to say that people should have more votes about an issue if they feel more strongly about it - and that may mean they are willing to spend more money (pay more taxes) to defend their point of view. But then, even poor gays would pay alot to obtain the right to marry while rich socon straights would pay little to stop it.

If we take a vote to burn down Black Dog's house, many might vote yes because it would be fun to watch. I'll bet BD would pay more than all of us combined to prevent such a majority decision.

----

I'm more intrigued by something else in the OP.

At the moment, the federal Liberal Party is doing as Argus suggests. It has selected 5000 "experts" to decide the next party leader.

Meanwhile, the Albertan PC party has gone the wide, "democratic" route. Five bucks and proof of residency mean that anyone can vote for the next leader.

Which system is better for choosing a leader? Which leader will be more successful?

In the case of a political party, it's a bit different. The party wants to have active militants. But if we're honest, municipal elections in Canada work as Argus suggests. Only about 20% of the population votes and they are usually the people (self-selected experts) who take an interest in municipal elections.

[geoffrey]

Those who contribute nothing, in essence pay no price for the largesse of government, and so should not be given a say until such time as they can contribute.

I have a serious problem with tax contributions as a sole measure of someone's worth or using income as a guage of intellect or good sense. It's a deeply reductionist viewpoint.

I think every individual who has a stake in the actions of the government should get to vote. And, since every citizen has a stake, every citizen gets a vote. Period.

I'm glad someone saw the stupidity of the suggestions in my post for what they were: an illustration of how moronic it is to give someone a higher stake because they pay more tax.

I'm going to jump in with both of you on this one. One person, one vote. There are contributions to society beyond dollars, think of all the charity work, ect. ect..

Then the question I have... should I be able to sell my vote?

[Saturn]

An idea a lot of people will probably hate: If you are not contributing anything to society you shouldn't be able to vote. An election is basically a vote on how tax money is to be spent. Why should you get a vote if you pay no taxes? If instead you actually consume taxes because you're a prisoner, or because you've been on welfare for ten years, why should you be able to help decide how the money others contribute is going to be spent?

Example. Say I pay $25,000 in taxes every year. My brother who is chain smoking, alcoholic bum on welfare, has never contributed anything. I get one vote. He gets one vote. I will vote for the party I consider will make the most efficient use of my money without waste or theft. He will vote for whoever promises to give him more welfare money, and improve conditions in his public housing unit.

Should I not resent that?

If you got cancer and you got a treatment worth $500K which you won't be able to pay through taxes for the rest of your life, should you lose your right to vote?

Besides if the chain smoking, alcoholic bums have such a great time, why don't you become one? Obviously you'd rather be where you are, resentful and all, than in his place, no?

Better yet, why not give people as many votes as their income/taxes? That way Belinda will get ten thousand times more votes than you will.

[Renegade]

Yeah that wouldn't make counting the bastards a pain at all. Not to mention how one would determine how many votes one has earned. Are we talking income tax alone or are others included?

So I gather now your objection is based upon the difficulting in implementation not upon the principle. Yep counting would be a pain, no doubt. We would need to be a lot more precise in accounting what we contribute. I'd like to say all taxes are included, but it may be easier just to count income tax.

Because-duh-I'm right.

Brilliant counterargument BD!! I'm sure you're right because you say so.

But that's not neccesarily reflected in how much someone pays in taxes. To go to the o.p.: I would argue Argus's welfare-dependant drunk brother has a far greater stake than someone in a comfy tax braket.

But it is the one in the comfy tax bracket who is paying to support the welfare brother. He should thus have greater say in how that money is spent.

[Renegade]

How do you even begin to prove that those who pay more taxes have more to lose by the government raising tax?

Sure, in flat out dollar comparison it is more money, but what affect that has on the person's standard of living is not the same.

If someone making $30,000/year pays $6,000 to the government an increase is going to make a bigger difference to them than someone making $375,000/year paying $100,000 to the government. Oh damn, they're only left with $275,000....how earth shattering.

Just using random numbers, but you get my point. Someone just above the poverty line has more to lose than someone WELL above.

The worth of money is always relative. When the government raises taxe rates, in general those who are in higher tax brackets pay more in dollar amounts. When the government lowers taxes, those in higher tax brackets benefit more in dollar amounts. It is irrevelant if the money is more or less valuable to them then someone earning far less.

The system you deride as "moronic" is one used all the time in corporations. Those who contribute more are accorded more shares and thus have more votes in appointing the directors of a company. There are a lot of stakeholders who depend upon the decisions of the company (eg customers, suppliers, etc). Should they too get a say in who runs the company? Government can be run on a similar principle. We buy our shares with our taxes.

[Renegade]

Better yet, why not give people as many votes as their income/taxes? That way Belinda will get ten thousand times more votes than you will.

Now you're on to something. Why didn't I think of that.