Jump to content

Different voting systems/requirements?


DTEJD1997
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey all:

 

I think this might prove to be a contentious thread, but I have some thoughts/ruminations on voting that have been kicking around in my head for a while.  I will share them and see what others think....

 

When I was growing up, I can distinctly remember my parents discussing/arguing/lamenting about taxes/voting.  This would have been sometime in the very late 70's or perhaps 1980 at the latest.

 

Growing up, my father worked two full time jobs.  Sometimes he would already be out the door before I had breakfast, this would have been maybe 7:30 AM?  Sometimes he was also working at dinner time too.  He would work almost every Saturday, but that would be a half day, and he would wrap things up in the early afternoon.

 

I remember the bitter complaints about taxes, and how he would have to effectively give up 1/2 his wages.  In reality, it was even higher than that, as there are sales taxes, property taxes, use taxes, mandatory fees, etc.  He got a vote at election time. 

 

HOWEVER, other people got votes also...

 

People who did not work, or did not work 80+ hours a week, people who did not pay property/business taxes, people who were not highly educated...and on and on...their vote counted EXACTLY the same as my father's vote.  He worked insanely hard and sacrificed a lot...

 

On the other hand, it does not seem right that people get NO vote at all.

 

So perhaps voting can be changed to one of two things...

 

A). You must satisfy certain requirements, say 12 of 20 eligibility requirements.  An eligibility requirement could be the following things:

 

A). No felony conviction

B). Over 18 years of age

C). High school/GED diploma

D). 4 year degree

E). Advanced degree

F). Service in military OR honorable discharge

G). Ownership of/and payment of property taxes

H). passing reading comprehension test

I). passing citizenship/history test

J). Ownership/starting of a business that pays payroll taxes, and employs more than 1 person

K). being married 5+ years

L). having children that are not criminals

M). passing math/numeracy exam

N). verifiable community service (1,000+ hrs. in a 3 year period?)

O). verifiable service/overseas charitable work (Red Cross, Drs. without borders, Peace Corps.) (1,000+ hrs. in 3 year period)

P). driver's license

Q). payment of SS & medicare/medicaid taxes ($1,000+ a year for 3 years?)

R). Have not been on welfare or handouts for say 4 of the past 6 years?

S). can pass a drug test

 

I am sure that I am forgetting some things OR there are quite possibly things that I've not even thought of or considered.

 

Basically, you have to distinguish yourself and have some "skin in the game" to get the right to vote.  That is, you pay taxes, you build things, are educated, you are a productive member of society, and so on.  You therefore get the vote....you are a highskool dropout with no job, no service...you might not have the vote.

 

in the alternative:

 

B). OR perhaps EVERYBODY gets one vote.  No matter what, you get one vote...the more things you can do/accomplish, the more votes you get.  Thus, if you are not a criminal, and served in the military for 8 years, graduated high school, have a house that you own, and a driver's license, you get 5 votes...and so on.  Thus, everybody gets a vote, but some people (highly productive, educated people) get more votes?

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but yea right. The Democrats would have no one in office if this were the case.

 

In all seriousness, I have wondered the same thing for a long time. I remember around the time Howard Stern was mocking people by reading Mitt Romney's policy and telling them it was Obama's, and amazingly they all were gung ho about how great "Obama's" ideas were. And I thought to myself, "wow, these people really have a vote that counts the same as an educated citizen???".

 

Hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpv0lPz-pd4

 

We could always just keep it simple and give people one vote for every tax dollar they pay. If you aren't productive, less votes. Dodge taxes, less votes. Are successful and earn a lot? More votes. Fairly simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I thought to myself, "wow, these people really have a vote that counts the same as an educated citizen???".

 

I agree!!

 

High school or less? No vote.

Some college? One vote.

College graduate? Two votes.

Post-graduate? Three votes.

 

That system would devastate the Dems.

 

Oh wait...

 

sT8CY7L.png

 

^ 2016 exit polls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I thought to myself, "wow, these people really have a vote that counts the same as an educated citizen???".

 

I agree!!

 

High school or less? No vote.

Some college? One vote.

College graduate? Two votes.

Post-graduate? Three votes.

 

That system would devastate the Dems.

 

Oh wait...

 

sT8CY7L.png

 

^ 2016 exit polls

 

Ah, yes! More "polls" about the 2016 election. Didn't we learn how accurate those are already? Guess not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for expanding the voting pool, but I think limiting it is baaaad news. Pretty much moves us one step away from a free society.

 

I mean, wasn't this same argument used by white society to suppress voting from the black population in the South (and hell, is sill used today?). Stuff like passing a reading comprehension test.

 

Take a read here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchisement_after_the_Reconstruction_Era#Methods_of_disenfranchisement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression#United_States

 

 

When I hear these types of arguments, it reminds me of the old saying... "Your papers, please"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes! More "polls" about the 2016 election. Didn't we learn how accurate those are already? Guess not...

 

Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% margin. RCP final polling average was Clinton +3.3%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 

The difference between +2.1% and +3.3% is well within the margin of error for all but one poll in the RCP average.

 

The election came down to 77,744 Votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/the-election-came-down-to-77-744-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan-updated

 

77,000 votes out of 136,000,000 ballots cast is 5.66e-4. This number is not just within the margin of error for any nation-wide poll. It's a blip that is impossible to catch through polling.

 

But go ahead, dismiss all polls out of hand. That's what self-professed educated voters do, amiright?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes! More "polls" about the 2016 election. Didn't we learn how accurate those are already? Guess not...

 

Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% margin. RCP final polling average was Clinton +3.3%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 

The difference between +2.1% and +3.3% is well within the margin of error for all but one poll in the RCP average.

 

The election came down to 77,744 Votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan:

https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/the-election-came-down-to-77-744-votes-in-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan-updated

 

77,000 votes out of 136,000,000 ballots cast is 5.66e-4. This number is not just within the margin of error for any nation-wide poll. It's a blip that is impossible to catch through polling.

 

But go ahead, dismiss all polls out of hand. That's what self-professed educated voters do, amiright?

 

It's amazing, the more history gets rewritten the further away we get. The closest polls had Clinton winning by 5% or so, most between 7-9% and some even higher. None had Trump getting anywhere near 270 electoral college votes. Many news outlets, including CNN the day of the election, said based on polls Trump would be lucky to hit 150. So yea, rewrite, skew and rely on the same media outlets to diminish the degree to which they tried and failed to manipulate the election for Clinton. Oh, and whine about Russia. What was the final EC count? Which of these outlets that were now all of a sudden "close" had him at 250? Cuz I believe he got 305.

 

Letting EVERYONE vote just waters down the quality. Makes the end product more mediocre. That may be democracy but its certainly questionable how that is the most effect "system".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but yea right. The Democrats would have no one in office if this were the case.

 

In all seriousness, I have wondered the same thing for a long time. I remember around the time Howard Stern was mocking people by reading Mitt Romney's policy and telling them it was Obama's, and amazingly they all were gung ho about how great "Obama's" ideas were. And I thought to myself, "wow, these people really have a vote that counts the same as an educated citizen???".

 

Hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpv0lPz-pd4

 

We could always just keep it simple and give people one vote for every tax dollar they pay. If you aren't productive, less votes. Dodge taxes, less votes. Are successful and earn a lot? More votes. Fairly simple.

Man, the cognitive dissonance force is strong with you.

 

It's nice that you can find a hilarious video on the internet. But maybe you can comment on those fine Trump voters that hated Obamacare but liked the ACA. Or maybe you can share your opinion on "Death Panels®".

 

Now let's explore your assertion that if votes were based on how much money one makes the Democrats would have no one in office. A few words come to mind. Like, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett. Those are the 3 richest people in the US. Or maybe you can go on the Forbes list look at the top 20 and try to figure how that vote broke for Trump.

 

You don't like polls and dismiss them. But take this in. The top 10 richest states, with the exception of Alaska are solid blue. The next 10 richest states are mostly blue. Still think in your system the Democrats won't have anyone in office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing, the more history gets rewritten the further away we get. The closest polls had Clinton winning by 5% or so, most between 7-9% and some even higher. None had Trump getting anywhere near 270 electoral college votes. Many news outlets, including CNN the day of the election, said based on polls Trump would be lucky to hit 150. So yea, rewrite, skew and rely on the same media outlets to diminish the degree to which they tried and failed to manipulate the election for Clinton. Oh, and whine about Russia. What was the final EC count? Which of these outlets that were now all of a sudden "close" had him at 250? Cuz I believe he got 305.

 

Clinton won the popular vote by +2.1%. That's a fact.

 

RealClearPolitics final polling average on the day before the Election was +3.3% Clinton. That's a fact.

 

Most polls in the RCP average had a margin of error in the 2.5%-3.0% range. That's a fact.

 

2.1% is well within the margin of error from the RCP average. That's a fact.

 

Feel free to fault the media for their poll coverage, but you can't fault the polls themselves.

 

Here's RCP link, again:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 

RealClearPolitics has a right-center bias:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/

 

====

 

Back to where we started, 2016 exit polls:

 

sT8CY7L.png

 

You dismissed these numbers out of hand. Okay. Do you have a different set of data that we can look at? Please share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea. I’d add being between the ages of 36-66 gets you another vote.

Also over 700 credit score. And another vote for over 800.

 

Sounds like discriminating against the poor... and young people. Reminds me of a dual class share scheme, which I didn't think were very popular on this board.  :P

 

One of the problems with voting currently is policies are created benefiting the percentage of the population with the most voting power. Policies like this would just increase inequalities.

 

But I love the idea of randomly selecting officials however! Would have to be from a pool of appropriate candidates. Last thing you would want is a reality TV star being elected to a position of power by accident. Imagine the chaos that could cause.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes! More "polls" about the 2016 election. Didn't we learn how accurate those are already? Guess not...

 

You don't like polls. Fair enough.

 

Here's a different set of data. This one is pure statistical analysis.

 

Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump

 

Clinton did +8.5% better than Obama in the 50 most-educated counties. 2016 Clinton beat 2012 Obama in 48 out of 50.

 

Clinton did -11.3% worse than Obama in the 50 least-educated counties. 2016 Clinton trailed 2012 Obama in 47 out of 50.

 

What does that tell you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like discriminating against the poor... and young people. Reminds me of a dual class share scheme, which I didn't think were very popular on this board.  :P

You're (relatively) new here, so let me help you along. This board likes dual class share structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but yea right. The Democrats would have no one in office if this were the case.

 

In all seriousness, I have wondered the same thing for a long time. I remember around the time Howard Stern was mocking people by reading Mitt Romney's policy and telling them it was Obama's, and amazingly they all were gung ho about how great "Obama's" ideas were. And I thought to myself, "wow, these people really have a vote that counts the same as an educated citizen???".

 

Hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpv0lPz-pd4

 

We could always just keep it simple and give people one vote for every tax dollar they pay. If you aren't productive, less votes. Dodge taxes, less votes. Are successful and earn a lot? More votes. Fairly simple.

Man, the cognitive dissonance force is strong with you.

 

It's nice that you can find a hilarious video on the internet. But maybe you can comment on those fine Trump voters that hated Obamacare but liked the ACA. Or maybe you can share your opinion on "Death Panels®".

 

Now let's explore your assertion that if votes were based on how much money one makes the Democrats would have no one in office. A few words come to mind. Like, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett. Those are the 3 richest people in the US. Or maybe you can go on the Forbes list look at the top 20 and try to figure how that vote broke for Trump.

 

You don't like polls and dismiss them. But take this in. The top 10 richest states, with the exception of Alaska are solid blue. The next 10 richest states are mostly blue. Still think in your system the Democrats won't have anyone in office?

 

My comment about Democrats having no one in office was based on the OP's threshold checklist. But thanks for purposely misrepresenting what I was saying...

 

Doing this based on how much one pays in taxes is loosely something I would support, regardless of who it landed in office, Democrat or Republican. Why? Because it rewards those that contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with OP, but I do think it's crazy we don't have federal voting standards, especially after the debacle in 2000. I think there should be one way to cast and count votes across the country. And as a software engineer, I think it should be a low tech as possible. Fine with me if there is an unofficial count running on tech, but the official count needs to be on something physical, reliable and counted by humans.  Security is too hard to get right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I don't agree with OP, but I do think it's crazy we don't have federal voting standards, especially after the debacle in 2000. I think there should be one way to cast and count votes across the country. And as a software engineer, I think it should be a low tech as possible. Fine with me if there is an unofficial count running on tech, but the official count needs to be on something physical, reliable and counted by humans.  Security is too hard to get right.

 

Just outsource it to Elections Canada...they do a great job :).  Canada does a great job on figuring out ridings too. We don't have any of your problems with gerry-mandering. In the Ontario election (run by Elections Ontario) they had a physical ballot but with voting machines that counted the ballots on site as you put them in. So they knew the election outcome quickly and reliably.

 

In fact it was so orderly that it was boring. You didn't even have to wait till after midnight to figure out anything...they basically knew the result right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, you have to distinguish yourself and have some "skin in the game" to get the right to vote.  That is, you pay taxes, you build things, are educated, you are a productive member of society, and so on.  You therefore get the vote....you are a highskool dropout with no job, no service...you might not have the vote.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I have two problems:

 

1) Its obvious that both political parties will try to game this to disenfranchise their opponents

 

2) This changes will almost certaintly result in a far more conservative direction for the country and will also tend to be self-reinforcing. By this I mean that people who have built something or have skin in the game will tend to bend the rules to benefit themselves so that they have even more stuff. And they will tend to avoid any changes that result in "losing" stuff.

 

This isn't necessarily a good thing since too much conservatism just results in statis. Society doesn't progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...