Allow Only Taxpayers to Vote; Give Rich More Votes

Why not just restrict voting to property owners? That seems pretty logical.

I am surprised this has never been thought of before...

 

While I would argue the veracity & logic of the fear, if he wanted this to happen, creating a movement to push for the rich to receive more votes would be the fastest route possible to his fear.

 

Idiotic. Of course, if corporations are "people," according to the current Supreme Court, why not just say to hell with it and completely hand over the keys to our government to the rich? After all, that's what is being proposed by this rich goofus.

 

Yes please.

There needs to be massive disincentive to become ultra wealthy. It breeds corruption and should be limited as much as possible.

 

The paranoia amongst these guys is hilarious.

Walton family bunker:



Gotta keep them surfs at bay.

 

Wingnuttery at it's finest.

 

"The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes," Perkins said.

Does that include sales tax ?

(Wonder if Tom shows up for Jury Duty?)

 

The things is, the rich are already disproportionately represented in their favor by our government when it comes to access and responsiveness. I'm actually in favor or limiting voting because there are too many idiots out there, but this isn't the best way to do it.

 

Just throwing it out there again: We should elect people at random from the adult population of each county. Statistically speaking, picking at random would give an average representation of the county. Term limits, a recall method, and other controls would be necessary, but it would be more democratic, you'd take power out of the hands of the two-party system, and money wouldn't play such a huge roll in the political system.

 

Question: If it's found out that any of these rich people are hiding their money in offshore accounts to avoid taxes would they lose their vote?

Seems fair

 

What's next? Warren Buffet and Bill Gate together should decide who is the next US President?

 

So what happens if you lose a lot of money or a lot of other people's money? Do you lose your citizenship or right to vote?

 

It's the only way libertarians would ever get elected. Corruption and bribes wouldn't matter, unless of course, this is the only chance you'll ever have to influence your own life, impose your radical ideas or benefit your particular tribe for the better. And a diverse country of 320 million that doesn't get to choose it's leaders certainly wouldn't be more prone to crime, assassinations or full-on revolt. Not even figuratively speaking, this is a violently horrible idea.

 

Why would you want an average random person determining the future of your country? Or, even worse, why would you want a below average person determining the future of your country 50% of the time?

 

Agreed

 

I think you're ignoring the enforced lack of prior governmental experience and institutional knowledge, which would fortunately default to the military.

 

I'll hazard to guess most of the 1% wouldn't support this. Finance guys are the only ones of that ilk who can't appreciate the extent to which public input, empowerment and mass cooperation can create and sustain value.

 

Apparently protecting the constitution only matters when it comes to guns...