Who should be allowed to vote?

[Renegade]

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..

So would you agree with the statement that your influnece in choosing the government should be reflective of your overall contribution to society? What about those who contribute nothing? Do they still get to vote?

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

Sure. Happens now anyway. The currency offered to pay for your vote is campaign promises.

[Black Dog]

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.

No, I object on principle. Again: contribution to society and one's stake in it cannot be measured by taxes alone.

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

Oh it was a joke.

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.

Here's a question: where does ownership over one's tax dollars stop? For example, suppose I don't want my tax dollars supporting the construction of more roads because of environmental concerns. Do I get to opt out, or does my "greater say" over how the money is spent stop at the ballot box? If I can't opt out, then I don't really have a say in how my money is spent.What about someone who doesn't pay quite enough in taxes to influence the process? If they back the wrong electoral horse, they would have no say in how their tax dollars are spent. The closer you get to the fine print of this idea, the sillier it gets.

So would you agree with the statement that your influnece in choosing the government should be reflective of your overall contribution to society? What about those who contribute nothing? Do they still get to vote?

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that its impossible to fully measure someone's contribution to society, so conferring democratic rights on that basis is impractical.

[Renegade]

No, I object on principle. Again: contribution to society and one's stake in it cannot be measured by taxes alone.

Yes I agree that contibution to society cannot be measured based upon taxes alone, but I support the princple that your influence should be based upon your contribution. I'm open to suggestions on how we measure the overall contribution. Tax contributions are measurable.

BTW, I did not advocate that people have NO say in society. I simply advocated that financial contributors should have a proportionaly larger say in financial decisions.

Here's a question: where does ownership over one's tax dollars stop? For example, suppose I don't want my tax dollars supporting the construction of more roads because of environmental concerns. Do I get to opt out, or does my "greater say" over how the money is spent stop at the ballot box? If I can't opt out, then I don't really have a say in how my money is spent.What about someone who doesn't pay quite enough in taxes to influence the process? If they back the wrong electoral horse, they would have no say in how their tax dollars are spent. The closer you get to the fine print of this idea, the sillier it gets.

I would love to see a system where you got to opt out of services provided. The ultimate system which does this is a user-pay system. The ideal system woudl be a minimalist government system and one in which services provided were billed to the user. If the user didn't want to pay for the service they are free not to do so.

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that its impossible to fully measure someone's contribution to society, so conferring democratic rights on that basis is impractical.

The objection seems to be strictly based upon the practicality of measuring contribution. Let's for a minute suppose that you could quantify contribution. Would you support the principle of influence for contribution?

[geoffrey]

The objection seems to be strictly based upon the practicality of measuring contribution. Let's for a minute suppose that you could quantify contribution. Would you support the principle of influence for contribution?

Let me take this one.

No.

It would create a circle of rule by wealth. People at the bottom would never have their points of view advocated and it would seriously impede their ability to progress. There would be little progress from the lower areas of society, and that's bad for all of us.

It discourages productivity as it encourages amassing of wealth.

There will be seriously marginalised groups no matter how you draw it up. Voting is one part in the equalisation of opportunity that we get from democracy. If there are enough poor people, they can act to change their situation. Removing that ability, sheesh.

[August1991]

The Liberal Party just voted down a motion to have a one member, one vote method to select a leader. Here's what Jason Cherniak had to say:

As a basic theory, I oppose one member, one vote. I believe that the best way to pick the best leader is for everybody to get together from across the country and share their opinions. That cannot happen when members are sitting around in their living rooms and voting by phone.

---

The debate in this thread seems to concern whether rich people who pay more taxes should get more votes than poor people who pay fewer or no taxes.

This question has been resolved in theory but no one has figured out a way to put it into practice - at least for government decisions. In simple terms, each person should vote according to how much they value something. Is that fair? Well, life's not fair.

Here's a question: where does ownership over one's tax dollars stop? For example, suppose I don't want my tax dollars supporting the construction of more roads because of environmental concerns. Do I get to opt out, or does my "greater say" over how the money is spent stop at the ballot box? If I can't opt out, then I don't really have a say in how my money is spent.What about someone who doesn't pay quite enough in taxes to influence the process? If they back the wrong electoral horse, they would have no say in how their tax dollars are spent. The closer you get to the fine print of this idea, the sillier it gets.

Here's a question BD: where does your ownership of the money you spend on coffee stop?

BD, how dow we collectively decide how much of the world's resources will go to coffee production? How do we decide who will get the coffee the world produces?

You seem to be comfortable with how we do it for coffee (since I don't see you advocating a world central-planning body for coffee). So why do you advocate central planning for road building?

IOW, would you agree to deciding how much coffee Canada should import by a one person, one vote system?

[Renegade]

It discourages productivity as it encourages amassing of wealth.

There will be seriously marginalised groups no matter how you draw it up. Voting is one part in the equalisation of opportunity that we get from democracy. If there are enough poor people, they can act to change their situation. Removing that ability, sheesh.

Ah, we finally get to the heart of the matter. ..

geoffery, you've said before that you oppose a mandate of government to redistribute wealth, yet that is exactly what you are advocating in the position above.

[Renegade]

The debate in this thread seems to concern whether rich people who pay more taxes should get more votes than poor people who pay fewer or no taxes.

There seems to be a prevaling view from the left, that the rich and corporations pay very little or no taxes due to their use of loopholes and shelters. You would think if this were true they would jump at the chance to disempower the rich by gearing votes to tax contribution.

[geoffrey]

It discourages productivity as it encourages amassing of wealth.

There will be seriously marginalised groups no matter how you draw it up. Voting is one part in the equalisation of opportunity that we get from democracy. If there are enough poor people, they can act to change their situation. Removing that ability, sheesh.

Ah, we finally get to the heart of the matter. ..

geoffery, you've said before that you oppose a mandate of government to redistribute wealth, yet that is exactly what you are advocating in the position above.

I disagree. I'm not advocating government distribution of wealth. I'm saying that a rich only government would take steps to prevent the market from allowing less people to rise up the ladder. It's almost the opposite of distribution of wealth... it would be the prevention of allowing the market to distribute wealth, which is does.

It would be a very oppressive system to live under if you weren't wealthy, and your chances of success would be limited despite your best efforts and decisions. That's not a positive outcome.

[Renegade]

I disagree. I'm not advocating government distribution of wealth. I'm saying that a rich only government would take steps to prevent the market from allowing less people to rise up the ladder. It's almost the opposite of distribution of wealth... it would be the prevention of allowing the market to distribute wealth, which is does.

It would be a very oppressive system to live under if you weren't wealthy, and your chances of success would be limited despite your best efforts and decisions. That's not a positive outcome.

When you advocate a system which is much like the one you have now, you in fact are advocating for a redistribution of welath.

Maybe you can elaborate on how you think a government would enact laws that woudl "prevent the market from allowing less people to rise up the ladder." Keep in mind that the bulk of the taxes are not paid by the rich, but are in fact paid by the middle class. So are you infact saying that a government appointed by mostly the middleclass would prevent themselves from rising up the ladder?

A system such as the one we have today, allows people who don't contribute, a say in how other's contribution is distributed in the form of services or wealth transfers. This inevitably leads to transfers of wealth as part of a government mandate.

[Black Dog]

A system such as the one we have today, allows people who don't contribute, a say in how other's contribution is distributed in the form of services or wealth transfers.

It doesn't really, no. It allows people one vote for their representative in government. Very few people have a say in who that representative is and fewer still have a say into what what government will do. So really, now that I think about it, the idea that someone's vote gives them any say in how their money is spent is actually quite naive.

This inevitably leads to transfers of welath as part of a governmetn mandate

And what about your system would prevent the redistribution of wealth, hmmm?

[Renegade]

It doesn't really, no. It allows people one vote for their representative in government. Very few people have a say in who that representative is and fewer still have a say into what what government will do. So really, now that I think about it, the idea that someone's vote gives them any say in how their money is spent is actually quite naive.

If your point is that the system today is flawed because a vote has such an indirect impact on how an individual's money is spent. I agree. Our system of electing representatives, disempowers us individually. I woudl be happy to see a system where we individually controlled where our money is spent.

And what about your system would prevent the redistribution of wealth, hmmm?

It doesn't. Not in an of itself anyway. It's just less likely to happen. IMV there would need to be additional controls to prevent redistribution of wealth.

IMV the biggest objection to a one-person one-vote system (OPOV) is it allows individuals who make little or no financial contribution to control the financial contribution made by others.

I'd be perfectly happy with a OPOV system, if strict controls were put on the government such that it couldn't redistribute wealth.

[Saturn]

I disagree. I'm not advocating government distribution of wealth. I'm saying that a rich only government would take steps to prevent the market from allowing less people to rise up the ladder. It's almost the opposite of distribution of wealth... it would be the prevention of allowing the market to distribute wealth, which is does.

It would be a very oppressive system to live under if you weren't wealthy, and your chances of success would be limited despite your best efforts and decisions. That's not a positive outcome.

When you advocate a system which is much like the one you have now, you in fact are advocating for a redistribution of welath.

Maybe you can elaborate on how you think a government would enact laws that woudl "prevent the market from allowing less people to rise up the ladder." Keep in mind that the bulk of the taxes are not paid by the rich, but are in fact paid by the middle class. So are you infact saying that a government appointed by mostly the middleclass would prevent themselves from rising up the ladder?

A system such as the one we have today, allows people who don't contribute, a say in how other's contribution is distributed in the form of services or wealth transfers. This inevitably leads to transfers of welath as part of a governmetn mandate.

Gee, are you a multi-millionaire? I am continuously amazed by people who have more to lose by restricting redistribution. Apparently 70% of people consider themselves "above average" and 25% consider themselves "average". So who the hell are the below average who benefit from the redistribution from the "above average"? It's always the people with the smallest house on the street that have the conservative election sign on their lawn and who advocate for flat taxes, private health-care and such. Obviously they are motivated by greed but they don't realize that it's not the people with the small houses who will benefit from such policies.

Middle class is middle class and they are not affected by redistribution of wealth. Those affected are the upper and lower classes. But the middle class think of themselves as upper and the lower class consider themselves middle. So apparently it's a lose-lose situation thanks to the overconfidence cognitive bias. Don't assume that you pay more into the system than you get in return! Chances are that you are overestimating your share of taxes and other contributions to the system.

[Renegade]

Gee, are you a multi-millionaire? I am continuously amazed by people who have more to lose by restricting redistribution. Apparently 70% of people consider themselves "above average" and 25% consider themselves "average".

"Above average" in what area? Intelligence, income, tax contribution, what?

So who the hell are the below average who benefit from the redistribution from the "above average"? It's always the people with the smallest house on the street that have the conservative election sign on their lawn and who advocate for flat taxes, private health-care and such. Obviously they are motivated by greed but they don't realize that it's not the people with the small houses who will benefit from such policies.

Middle class is middle class and they are not affected by redistribution of wealth. Those affected are the upper and lower classes. But the middle class think of themselves as upper and the lower class consider themselves middle. So apparently it's a lose-lose situation thanks to the overconfidence cognitive bias.

You seem to assume that I only favour a policy if I think there is something in it for me. That's not how I make my determination.

Don't assume that you pay more into the system than you get in return!

I'm not assuming. I'd be willing to take my chances on getting little to nothing from the system in exchange for reducing my contribution to little to nothing.

Chances are that you are overestimating your share of taxes and other contributions to the system.

Maybe, maybe not. The principle still stands. If I contribute little, I should get little influence.

[Black Dog]

If your point is that the system today is flawed because a vote has such an indirect impact on how an individual's money is spent. I agree. Our system of electing representatives, disempowers us individually. I woudl be happy to see a system where we individually controlled where our money is spent.

How? A "One Buck, One Vote" system wouldn't do it. How would a nation of 30 million taxpayers cater to the whims of each individual? Bottom line: unless youbelive taxes are wrong and should be done away with completely, there's no possible way each taxpayer can control wher etheir money goes. And even if they could, just imagine the chaos that would ensue!

[Renegade]

If your point is that the system today is flawed because a vote has such an indirect impact on how an individual's money is spent. I agree. Our system of electing representatives, disempowers us individually. I woudl be happy to see a system where we individually controlled where our money is spent.

How? A "One Buck, One Vote" system wouldn't do it. How would a nation of 30 million taxpayers cater to the whims of each individual? Bottom line: unless youbelive taxes are wrong and should be done away with completely, there's no possible way each taxpayer can control wher etheir money goes. And even if they could, just imagine the chaos that would ensue!

While it may not be possile to give complete control to tax contributors, some measures can be taken to better control where and how tax money is spent.

These measure include:

1. Relying primaily on user fees to fund services. Thus the taxes raised are proportonate to the demand and willingness to pay.

2. Where possible allow taxpayers to opt out of a service (eg EI, CPP)

3. Give people input on where the money collected is spent. It wouldn't be hard to implement as part of your income tax return can be used to indicate broadly in percentage terms where you want the money spent. The government should be force to follow that input.

[Hydraboss]

I don't believe it would be at all possible for the federal government to tally voter cards and their "percentages for service" and then make any type of political decisions based on them. Their scope of governance is simply too huge. This is the main reason I endorse the provinces collecting income tax and handling their own affairs, and simply paying the invoice the fed's send for those items that are strictly under federal jurisdiction. The closer to the people a government is, the more responsive it has to be.

Pension plans - provincial. Don't stay in the province? Don't collect.

EI - provincial. Don't stay in the province when you become unemployed? Don't collect. This would prevent people from working in one province (provincial income positive), and then moving to another province to collect worker's welfare (provincial income negative).

One flat tax - provincial. The province collects it, and the province dishes it out. There should not be three main levels of taxation.

Consumption taxes - provincial. If the flat tax idea won't fly, revoke them all and greatly increase consumption taxes. User-pay system.

[mcqueen625]

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?

People on Income Assistance should definitely be allowed to vote, but people living in prisons for breaking the laws of this country should definitely not be allowed to vote. When they made the choice to break the law and are convicted and sentenced to prison they should lose their right to cast a ballot. They have shown themselves to be disrespectful of not only other Canadians but also the laws which govern our society, so why should they be allowed to participate by having the right to vote?

[cybercoma]

there's no possible way each taxpayer can control wher etheir money goes.

Don't tax anyone. Make people pay for everything they use.

[abcon99]

I hate criminals, but my mind is made up on this issue. Every single citizen of a country must be able to vote. You lose your freedom when you commit a crime. I would lock most criminals up and throw away the key, and even execute a whole bunch of them, but till they are dead, they get to vote. If you dared to take my vote, even if I did not contribute, because welfare, or jail, or prison, you would not like my reaction. Most of these people on welfare and in prison don't vote anyway. It is not a big deal.

[mikedavid00]

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?

No we need a leaders 'vision'. lol just kidding.

Great idea on it's face but it's not politically possible to pass this throgh the house.

I also feel the same about poeple who enter the country and expect to use our health care system.

It honestly did hurt when a co-workers mother got sponsored in from Pakistan and within her first two months here skipped the queue and got an eye surgery because of the Pakistani connections in our health care system.

[mikedavid00]

Every single citizen of a country must be able to vote.

What about the millions of 'perminant residents', refugees, and 'non status' in this country?

They make up more of our country per capita than anywhere else on eath. Do they not take part in this country? Should't they be allowed to vote?

[jdobbin]

What about the millions of 'perminant residents', refugees, and 'non status' in this country?

They make up more of our country per capita than anywhere else on eath. Do they not take part in this country? Should't they be allowed to vote?

Really. I'd love to see the statistics on that.

[mikedavid00]

What about the millions of 'perminant residents', refugees, and 'non status' in this country?

They make up more of our country per capita than anywhere else on eath. Do they not take part in this country? Should't they be allowed to vote?

Really. I'd love to see the statistics on that.

It's true. We have the most immigrants and refugees per capita than any place on earth and we issue more citizenships per capita than any country on earth. I'm too lazy to re-lookup this information.

50% of Canada speaks English as their first language.

If you don't think so then how was it possible that we had a staggaring 50,000 'Canadians' in Lebanon?

[Renegade]

It's true. We have the most immigrants and refugees per capita than any place on earth and we issue more citizenships per capita than any country on earth. I'm too lazy to re-lookup this information.

Well I'm not. This claim that we have most refugees per captia is complete nonsense. Refugees (per capita) by country

At least you got right that Canada issues more citizenships per captia. New citizenships (per capita) by country

[mikedavid00]

What about the millions of 'perminant residents', refugees, and 'non status' in this country?

They make up more of our country per capita than anywhere else on eath. Do they not take part in this country? Should't they be allowed to vote?

Really. I'd love to see the statistics on that.

I don't want to fish around the gov't website to find the source data, but found this rereference:

"Canada has the most immigrants per capita in the world."