15 ms·

I think the weight of your vote should come from the amount of taxes you pay, up to some cap. Can someone explain to me like I’m 12 why this is a bad idea?

by valval 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
slg 2y ago
Beyond anything else, intentionally designing a political system around disenfranchising a class of people seems like a bad idea from a human rights standpoint. You're creating a system in which the wealthier citizens can systematically take the rights away from the poor. I think you know how that can go wrong considering you're asking this question specifically on this post out of all posts.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  All extant and historical systems explicitly disenfranchise some people, children, criminals, foreigners, etc.
  - krapp 2y ago
    And we should work to remove such disenfranchisements from the system rather than simply accept them as a law of nature.
    - e44858 2y ago
      Why? Most people find it beneficial to disenfranchise criminals, don't want murderers walking free and hurting you. Why should people support policies that hurt them?
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        Citizens convicted of crimes are citizens just like you (I assume) and I. I don't think most people find it beneficial to disenfranchise them. One obvious use case for not disenfranchising citizens convicted of crimes, is a politician who criminalizes opposition, thus making it impossible to vote them out. As for policies which hurt people: policies favoring old folks often hurt the majority of people, but there isn't a big push to disenfranchise old people.
      - krapp 2y ago
        Unless you're arguing for the summary execution of all felons, we already allow murderers to walk free after serving their time. Hell, when those murderers are soldiers we give them medals and parades. Sorry, technically those soldiers are killers and not murderers since when they take innocent lives it's endorsed by the state. But if you think the presence of felons within society presents a social or public safety issue, consider that the real problem is that the justice system in the US is punitive and exploitative rather than rehabilitative, and what cultural and systemic issues might lead people to crime and violence in the first place, and to recidivism.
CrendKing 2y ago
1. The richest 1% vote whoever makes them even richer, at the expense of all the other 99% poorer than them. 2. The other 99% people no longer play the "democracy" game with the rich, form their own government without the "voting power corresponds to how much tax paid". 3. The rich people country loses its foundation, thus can no longer sustain. The rich join the poor people country.
INTPenis 2y ago
Can you explain to me why votes should be weighted differently at all?
- marcusverus 2y ago
  When you have a tough problem and need advice, do you turn to your unemployed uncle? The homeless guy on the street corner? Of course not. Not all opinions are of equal value. Pretending that they are of equal value is asinine.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    I’m not sure “seeking the best advice on how to run a government” would even make the top-5 reasons to have a democracy, if you polled political scientists.
  - consteval 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        > Your feelings on the matter don't constitute an argument. Nor do your feelings that poor people are de facto dumber than rich people.
        marcusverus 2y ago
        I said no such thing.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        > Your feelings on the matter don't constitute an argument. Nor do your feelings that poor people have less informed, less useful, less credible, less valid, or less valuable opinions than rich people. Better?
pjc50 2y ago
Disenfranchising all the retirees would certainly shake up politics.
SilverBirch 2y ago
There's points of principle and points of practicality. First - all men are created equal. Fundamentally, our political system should be designed around equality of all - otherwise why would the people who are less equal feel the need to support the system? If I only get 1/10th of the vote you get, why don't I take up arms and put my people in charge and count my vote 10x your vote? In terms of practicality, your taxes this year? Your lifetime taxes? College students? No vote. What happens if I paid a million in taxes last year because I sold my company but nothing this year because I took a year out? Do state taxes count? What about state contracts, do we discount Elon Musks' vote because he receives so many state contracts for his companies like SpaceX? Or do we worry that Elon Musk gets tonnes of political power which he then uses to pressure the government into.. awarded him more SpaceX contracts? Those paying the most taxes are by definition those who have benefitted most from a well run country, surely they be penalized not given more power?
- valval 2y ago
  To your first point; is progressive taxation fair or equal? Aren’t the high income earners being treated unfairly without getting anything in return for it? To your second point; lifetime seems fair to me. Should college kids’ votes count as much as someone’s with more life experience? It doesn’t seem intuitive to me. I get the plain “all humans are created equal” argument from an ethical perspective, but I don’t think this goes quite that deep. I would see this more as a tuning parameter for the efficiency of this system in the same way that criminal sentencing or any concensus based model we have where certain people have more “say” in it. In a Christian sense, which you might find jarring, I’d regard the “all humans are equal” part a rule made by God, and “some humans should be given more decision power” a rule made by us that in no way contradicts God’s ultimate will.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ossobuco 2y ago
If you want a plutocracy then that's how you'd do it. Spoiler: the weight your vote is already determined by your worth, billionaires can lobby governments, average people can't.
dragonwriter 2y ago
Because it empowers those most favored by existing systemic biases extra power to protect those biases against progress toward equality.

I think the weight of your vote should come from the amount of taxes you pay, up to some cap. Can someone explain to me like I’m 12 why this is a bad idea?

by valval 2y ago

I think the weight of your vote should come from the amount of taxes you pay, up to some cap. Can someone explain to me like I’m 12 why this is a bad idea?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

slg 2y ago

Beyond anything else, intentionally designing a political system around disenfranchising a class of people seems like a bad idea from a human rights standpoint. You're creating a system in which the wealthier citizens can systematically take the rights away from the poor. I think you know how that can go wrong considering you're asking this question specifically on this post out of all posts.

potato3732842 2y ago
All extant and historical systems explicitly disenfranchise some people, children, criminals, foreigners, etc.
- krapp 2y ago
  And we should work to remove such disenfranchisements from the system rather than simply accept them as a law of nature.
  - e44858 2y ago
    Why? Most people find it beneficial to disenfranchise criminals, don't want murderers walking free and hurting you. Why should people support policies that hurt them?
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      Citizens convicted of crimes are citizens just like you (I assume) and I. I don't think most people find it beneficial to disenfranchise them. One obvious use case for not disenfranchising citizens convicted of crimes, is a politician who criminalizes opposition, thus making it impossible to vote them out. As for policies which hurt people: policies favoring old folks often hurt the majority of people, but there isn't a big push to disenfranchise old people.
    - krapp 2y ago
      Unless you're arguing for the summary execution of all felons, we already allow murderers to walk free after serving their time. Hell, when those murderers are soldiers we give them medals and parades. Sorry, technically those soldiers are killers and not murderers since when they take innocent lives it's endorsed by the state. But if you think the presence of felons within society presents a social or public safety issue, consider that the real problem is that the justice system in the US is punitive and exploitative rather than rehabilitative, and what cultural and systemic issues might lead people to crime and violence in the first place, and to recidivism.

CrendKing 2y ago

1. The richest 1% vote whoever makes them even richer, at the expense of all the other 99% poorer than them. 2. The other 99% people no longer play the "democracy" game with the rich, form their own government without the "voting power corresponds to how much tax paid". 3. The rich people country loses its foundation, thus can no longer sustain. The rich join the poor people country.

INTPenis 2y ago

Can you explain to me why votes should be weighted differently at all?

marcusverus 2y ago
When you have a tough problem and need advice, do you turn to your unemployed uncle? The homeless guy on the street corner? Of course not. Not all opinions are of equal value. Pretending that they are of equal value is asinine.
- vundercind 2y ago
  I’m not sure “seeking the best advice on how to run a government” would even make the top-5 reasons to have a democracy, if you polled political scientists.
- consteval 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      > Your feelings on the matter don't constitute an argument. Nor do your feelings that poor people are de facto dumber than rich people.
      - marcusverus 2y ago
        I said no such thing.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        > Your feelings on the matter don't constitute an argument. Nor do your feelings that poor people have less informed, less useful, less credible, less valid, or less valuable opinions than rich people. Better?

pjc50 2y ago

Disenfranchising all the retirees would certainly shake up politics.

SilverBirch 2y ago

There's points of principle and points of practicality. First - all men are created equal. Fundamentally, our political system should be designed around equality of all - otherwise why would the people who are less equal feel the need to support the system? If I only get 1/10th of the vote you get, why don't I take up arms and put my people in charge and count my vote 10x your vote? In terms of practicality, your taxes this year? Your lifetime taxes? College students? No vote. What happens if I paid a million in taxes last year because I sold my company but nothing this year because I took a year out? Do state taxes count? What about state contracts, do we discount Elon Musks' vote because he receives so many state contracts for his companies like SpaceX? Or do we worry that Elon Musk gets tonnes of political power which he then uses to pressure the government into.. awarded him more SpaceX contracts? Those paying the most taxes are by definition those who have benefitted most from a well run country, surely they be penalized not given more power?

valval 2y ago
To your first point; is progressive taxation fair or equal? Aren’t the high income earners being treated unfairly without getting anything in return for it? To your second point; lifetime seems fair to me. Should college kids’ votes count as much as someone’s with more life experience? It doesn’t seem intuitive to me. I get the plain “all humans are created equal” argument from an ethical perspective, but I don’t think this goes quite that deep. I would see this more as a tuning parameter for the efficiency of this system in the same way that criminal sentencing or any concensus based model we have where certain people have more “say” in it. In a Christian sense, which you might find jarring, I’d regard the “all humans are equal” part a rule made by God, and “some humans should be given more decision power” a rule made by us that in no way contradicts God’s ultimate will.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ossobuco 2y ago

If you want a plutocracy then that's how you'd do it. Spoiler: the weight your vote is already determined by your worth, billionaires can lobby governments, average people can't.

dragonwriter 2y ago

Because it empowers those most favored by existing systemic biases extra power to protect those biases against progress toward equality.