Should voting be limited to taxpayers and landowners?

[RolandtheHeadless]

A friend recently argued to me that only owners of real property or other substantial assets, who pay the lion's share of taxes, should be allowed to vote. This was actually the law in early America and some European countries.

His rationale as I understood it was that net users of government resources are in a conflict of interest with good government because they'll always want to vote for government benefits for themselves at the expense of good government. They'll always want to vote to spend more of other people's taxes on themselves.

This argument has some appeal to me, but also strikes me as likely to take us back to the 18th or 19th centuries where poor and disabled people starved on the streets or turned to criminals and beggars.

What do you think?

 

[Haruspex]

Wealth and taxes do not come ex nihilo. While it might be true that some members of society pay considerably more in taxes, their ability to do so, indeed to earn as much as they do, is influenced by society as a whole. You cannot run a successful, large corporation without people willing to manufacture your goods and people willing and able to purchase them. I find it difficult to determine the contributions of all individuals within society because we live in inter-connected and highly complex societies. Going with a desert based standard for voting rights might work in a small community, but it is an exercise in futility in the modern context.

I am not a huge proponent of democracy... meritocracy/technocracy certainly sounds better, but I am quite hostile towards the idea of placing all authority in the hands of those who have demonstrated the most ostensible greed throughout the centuries.

 

[nahadef]

It would be a massive backwards slide to base voting on taxes paid. Really, how would the poor be represented? Every citizen should have a vote.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

His rationale as I understood it was that net users of government resources are in a conflict of interest with good government because they'll always want to vote for government benefits for themselves at the expense of good government. They'll always want to vote to spend more of other people's taxes on themselves.

Two points are at conflict with reality. One is that the people don't vote to spend money on themselves except at the very local level and only rarely. Mostly the people only vote for representatives. I don't think there is much voting for representatives because they promised to spend money on the people, or voting for reps who promise welfare expansion. But the rich and powerful do get bills laid before Congress which funnels tax money to them, that is for sure. Which brings to me next point: Tax money is being diverted to the rich as much or more than the poor. Its most likely the middle class getting the least, particularly per capita.

But look how the money is being spent. A huge amount to the military and to military related contractors. So much going to the military is paying for salaries, but what goes to contractors contains huge volumes of sheer profit. And, correct me if I am wrong, but a near equal chunk of money goes to programs like social security, basically taking care of the sick, and especially the old, who have worked to build the society we have and generate the tax money we have to spend. Even if the rich pay the most in taxes, its always the workers who actually generated the actual wealth. Abandoning them in old age would ensure today's workers have no hope, lose productivity and they may even revolt.

But even in that system, I think there may be too much going to the sheer profit of hospitals and doctors. But I still see, particularly per capita, the rich have already voted to divert the money back to themselves.

My opinion on voting is that it should be a privilege granted to people of merit. It think its nuts that people of low IQ and low social status are allowed to vote for who is the better looking candidate or the one who speaks the most eloquently or the one who they identify with (such as GWB). Politicians should be chosen by people who have intelligence, knowledge and/or wealth. Further, come election time, they should not be needing to dumb down things for people such as alcoholic trailer park denizens, or inner-city slum dwellers, nor should they need to spin what they say or be dressed and made up to sway them. No one who even think of taking 20 dollars to vote for who they were told should be in line to vote. Politicians should be able to focus more on the issues, by only needing to worry about voters knowledgeable and cognizant of the issues. And its not just the taxpayers and the landowners who can do that. Even some people in trailer parks and inner cities have the intelligence and knowledge, but most do not.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It would be a massive backwards slide to base voting on taxes paid. Really, how would the poor be represented? Every citizen should have a vote.

I could go along with that as long as people of merit got multiple votes. Then every citizen should be able to increase their merit and get their multiple votes too.

I could even see a system were regular voting gets you an extra vote. I would like to see more carrots in this system.

 

[Tamayo]

(I mean this all in the context of the United States, by the way)

While I don't have sympathy for people who envy the rich (I can admit that I myself am not hard-working enough to be rich), it doesn't go to say that I think anyone should be excluded for not having enough money. To be honest, though, I think it's too easy to vote. Any old schmuck and his grandmother can vote, come voting season. I'd like to see some sort of official prerequisite for voting, other than being 18. Maybe some specific level of education, or something reminiscent of an IQ test. There are people out there who vote based on which names they like more, or some ridiculous, fallacious misinformation they see on TV. You wouldn't even believe how utterly ridiculous political campaigning gets, especially on television at late night, and to dumber, less-educated audiences in general. I don't think that propaganda would have such a terrible stranglehold over this country if there was some kind of requirement to vote. Hell, even illegals can vote.

This kind of carelessness is really just an embarrassment to my country. Laws and bills get passed because the media uses glittering generalities and obfuscated information to persuade sheeple, and not because they actually SHOULD be passed.

 

[Haruspex]

(I mean this all in the context of the United States, by the way)

While I don't have sympathy for people who envy the rich (I can admit that I myself am not hard-working enough to be rich), it doesn't go to say that I think anyone should be excluded for not having enough money. To be honest, though, I think it's too easy to vote. Any old schmuck and his grandmother can vote, come voting season. I'd like to see some sort of official prerequisite for voting, other than being 18. Maybe some specific level of education, or something reminiscent of an IQ test. There are people out there who vote based on which names they like more, or some ridiculous, fallacious misinformation they see on TV. You wouldn't even believe how utterly ridiculous political campaigning gets, especially on television at late night, and to dumber, less-educated audiences in general. I don't think that propaganda would have such a terrible stranglehold over this country if there was some kind of requirement to vote. Hell, even illegals can vote.

This kind of carelessness is really just an embarrassment to my country. Laws and bills get passed because the media uses glittering generalities and obfuscated information to persuade sheeple, and not because they actually SHOULD be passed.

Campaigning is the true cancer. Wouldn't it be better to have a system where parties are only allowed to publish their manifesto and if a significant number of promises or principal promises are not kept, the house/senate/parliament/whatever is dissolved? But sadly, in reality, people are rather taken with the whole campaigning and common suffrage thing. But I do agree in many respects. The way I see it, in most countries, the lower classes are dancing to the tune of the upper class while the middle classes are too few in number to do anything. I mean, most, if not all, electorates are made up of cretins, primarily.

 

[Tamayo]

Campaigning is the true cancer. Wouldn't it be better to have a system where parties are only allowed to publish their manifesto and if a significant number of promises or principal promises are not kept, the house/senate/parliament/whatever is dissolved? But sadly, in reality, people are rather taken with the whole campaigning and common suffrage thing. But I do agree in many respects. The way I see it, in most countries, the lower classes are dancing to the tune of the upper class while the middle classes are too few in number to do anything. I mean, most, if not all, electorates are made up of cretins, primarily.

I just want there to be a way to take money out of politics. No more politicians having been bought and paid for by a third party, no more incentive to cater to anything but the "greater good" of the people who they serve, and not nearly as many benefits. I think an ideal political system would be more reminiscent of Plato's (or was it Socrates?) idea of the philosopher king, but on an individual basis for the many different people who make up the government.

And yes, I'd have campaigning largely done away with. I'm growing sick and tired of American politicians' habits of mud-slinging and obfuscation.

 

[RickNZ]

I would support a system where only taxpayers get to have an influence on the big-ticket items in the budget which use up the bulk of taxpayers money. Any issues that don't involve huge costs to the taxpayer should be open to everyone. No idea how you could practically implement such a system though.

 

[Lestat84]

I would modify what you proposed to a system where taxes are a necessity to vote, but you could rent property as well. Maybe it has to be a certain value or size, but that includes more of the middle class. I salso think some kind of minimum education requirement should be imposed. Say at minimum an associates degree or a Ged or something.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

The US has a poor history with literacy (education) tests for voting. Some states, up until 1970 or so, used these tests to prevent racial and ethnic minorities from voting. This practice wasn't widespread, but any occurrence is too many. If we put determination of the right to vote in the hands of politicians and government bureaucrats like this, we may not consider the outcome to be right and fair.

Besides, even someone with a lower IQ or lesser education might be superior at judging a politician's honesty and character. I'd bet that all of us have met highly educated people who can be outright fools about some things, especially in their relations with other people.

 

[Hezam]

Who has the right to vote in the United States ? And who doesn't have the right to vote ?

thanks.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

In the US, you have to be a citizen, over 18, and still breathing in order to legally vote. And not have lost your right to vote due to a criminal conviction.

You're a citizen if you're born on US soil or by going through the naturalization process which is finalized by an oath sworn before a federal judge. I'm a birthright citizen (born on US soil), and my wife is a naturalized citizen.

"Still breathing" is not necessarily a joke. There have been instances of fraud involving the voting of dead people.