5 ms·

Horrific idea. Those paying into the system should have the strongest stake, not those with elementary ideas and no stake at all (or worse, those dependent upon

Horrific idea. Those paying into the system should have the strongest stake, not those with elementary ideas and no stake at all (or worse, those dependent upon the system's rewards).

optimalsolver 1y ago
So just men of property, right? Preferably also only direct descendants of Magna Carta signatories.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Net tax payers in past parliament. Receive private pension or public health care or use some public service. Well you are out of voter pool. Corporate handouts should also be counted. Own stock in company that gets some public funds and that is counted against you.
_heimdall 1y ago
What do you mean by "strongest stake" here? Those paying the most already are more invested in the outcomes of the country, do you mean their vote should count for more or less based on how much they pay in taxes?
- sethammons 1y ago
  I'd be interested in a system where you can gain additional voting power based on $stake. Everyone gets a vote, but based on $criteria, you gain additional votes. Youth and parents get an extra vote on school stuff. Those whose education or career are related to a field get an extra vote. In some cases, you may hold 5x the voting power of someone who is removed and unfamiliar with a topic. No idea if anything like that has been explored.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    I'd hate to see that system implemented. The point of every person getting one vote is to even the playing field. Everyone living under that authority's rule should have an equal say in who runs that authority. Allowing people to have more or less say based on stake would lead to a spiral. Those in charge take care of the people they care about, those people would continue to elect the same politicians, and everyone else would be left aside while power (and stake) consolidates.
    - sethammons 1y ago
      Graduated income taxes level the playing field; wouldn't a graduated voting system level the playing field? Why should someone who knows nothing of field have a say in laws that over represents their knowledge and stake? I don't think my vote for what you feed your kids should count the same as your vote on what you feed your kids. The worry about votes and power collecting is sane. It happens already through propaganda and ill informed (usually due to low perceived stakes) voters. We need a system that counters the negative effects if low informed masses.
      - _heimdall 1y ago
        > Graduated income taxes level the playing field Well we definitely disagree there, but that's probably a deeper rabbit hole than is worth diving down here. > Why should someone who knows nothing of field have a say in laws that over represents their knowledge and stake? I don't think voting rights should be gated on education, experience, or opinions. I already hesitate with age, but saying a child shouldn't vote feels much less offensive than saying a person with money or education should get more votes. > I don't think my vote for what you feed your kids should count the same as your vote on what you feed your kids. I don't think either of us should have any say in what the other feeds their kids, the law should definitely not have a say in that either. > We need a system that counters the negative effects if low informed masses. I think we pretty well agree here, except for maybe the angle of a solution. I'm of the opinion that we can't force people to be better educated, nor should we prevent them from voting. In my opinion the government should only have as much authority as we are willing to hand over to an official elected by today's voting population. If we fear the mob or the uneducated voter than the issue is with how much power our government has rather than who does the voting.
- netbioserror 1y ago
  It's simply unwise to distribute power, however minute, to those who don't yet know where their food comes from.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    I would argue that a majority of the voting population in the west doesn't know where their food comes from.
jackvalentine 1y ago
Time to cancel the right to vote for anyone 70+ then right? They don’t really have much of a stake in the outcome anymore.
- netbioserror 1y ago
  If you're implying that money printing significantly benefits the generation which instates it and bankrupts everyone who comes after, then I agree. And democracies have a long history of relying on debasement to fund their excesses, a significant factor in their implosions.
- rpcorb 1y ago
  Why don't they have a stake in the outcome anymore?
  - rwmj 1y ago
    Because they won't be around for much longer, so they won't pay many taxes compared to someone aged 16. (For the record: Devil's advocate take. I think this whole idea of voting in proportion to your monetary value is ridiculous.)
    - jackvalentine 1y ago
      (For the record, I also think this voting in proportion to your monetary value is ridiculous.) I was more thinking however that their average life expectency doesn't allow for long-term consequences of elections to affect them.
hermannj314 1y ago
The essence of Democracy is voting for a bond measure whose principal you'll never live long enough to see paid down. Children voting will ruin the grift.
johneth 1y ago
16-year-olds do pay into the system. Some may have jobs or apprenticeships that pay them, for which they're directly taxed. Some may have started their own business, which will pay tax. All will pay VAT when they buy products and services.
Palmik 1y ago
Can you explain why you think that? Do you think person's voting power should be directly proportional to how much they pay in taxes? (Beyond the already indirect influence of money) In a very important sense, 16 year old has a much bigger stake in the future of their country than a 70 year old.
- netbioserror 1y ago
  >Do you think person's voting power should be directly proportional to how much they pay in taxes? Not quite, because that would grant power and influence to the rich that is already quite heavy on account of their wealth and ability to employ constituents. Qualifying voting power by way of being an active payer is, however, absolutely sensible. >A 16 year old has a much bigger stake in the future of their country than a 70 year old. They also have nothing to lose. With the least invested in a system's continuation, history is rich with young teenage raiders, conquerors, mutineers, revolutionaries, and rioters. They are the primary demographic with the lowest stake, and have the least concern for any Chesterton's fences. They are also the poorest equipped to make decisions concerning material resources, since utopian idealism is common at that age. They haven't yet suffered or built much at all, and it's easy for them to dismiss the sheer volume of accumulated knowledge, material, and labor that sustains civilization.

Horrific idea. Those paying into the system should have the strongest stake, not those with elementary ideas and no stake at all (or worse, those dependent upon the system's rewards).

optimalsolver 1y ago

So just men of property, right? Preferably also only direct descendants of Magna Carta signatories.

Ekaros 1y ago
Net tax payers in past parliament. Receive private pension or public health care or use some public service. Well you are out of voter pool. Corporate handouts should also be counted. Own stock in company that gets some public funds and that is counted against you.

_heimdall 1y ago

What do you mean by "strongest stake" here? Those paying the most already are more invested in the outcomes of the country, do you mean their vote should count for more or less based on how much they pay in taxes?

sethammons 1y ago
I'd be interested in a system where you can gain additional voting power based on $stake. Everyone gets a vote, but based on $criteria, you gain additional votes. Youth and parents get an extra vote on school stuff. Those whose education or career are related to a field get an extra vote. In some cases, you may hold 5x the voting power of someone who is removed and unfamiliar with a topic. No idea if anything like that has been explored.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  I'd hate to see that system implemented. The point of every person getting one vote is to even the playing field. Everyone living under that authority's rule should have an equal say in who runs that authority. Allowing people to have more or less say based on stake would lead to a spiral. Those in charge take care of the people they care about, those people would continue to elect the same politicians, and everyone else would be left aside while power (and stake) consolidates.
  - sethammons 1y ago
    Graduated income taxes level the playing field; wouldn't a graduated voting system level the playing field? Why should someone who knows nothing of field have a say in laws that over represents their knowledge and stake? I don't think my vote for what you feed your kids should count the same as your vote on what you feed your kids. The worry about votes and power collecting is sane. It happens already through propaganda and ill informed (usually due to low perceived stakes) voters. We need a system that counters the negative effects if low informed masses.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      > Graduated income taxes level the playing field Well we definitely disagree there, but that's probably a deeper rabbit hole than is worth diving down here. > Why should someone who knows nothing of field have a say in laws that over represents their knowledge and stake? I don't think voting rights should be gated on education, experience, or opinions. I already hesitate with age, but saying a child shouldn't vote feels much less offensive than saying a person with money or education should get more votes. > I don't think my vote for what you feed your kids should count the same as your vote on what you feed your kids. I don't think either of us should have any say in what the other feeds their kids, the law should definitely not have a say in that either. > We need a system that counters the negative effects if low informed masses. I think we pretty well agree here, except for maybe the angle of a solution. I'm of the opinion that we can't force people to be better educated, nor should we prevent them from voting. In my opinion the government should only have as much authority as we are willing to hand over to an official elected by today's voting population. If we fear the mob or the uneducated voter than the issue is with how much power our government has rather than who does the voting.
netbioserror 1y ago
It's simply unwise to distribute power, however minute, to those who don't yet know where their food comes from.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  I would argue that a majority of the voting population in the west doesn't know where their food comes from.

jackvalentine 1y ago

Time to cancel the right to vote for anyone 70+ then right? They don’t really have much of a stake in the outcome anymore.

netbioserror 1y ago
If you're implying that money printing significantly benefits the generation which instates it and bankrupts everyone who comes after, then I agree. And democracies have a long history of relying on debasement to fund their excesses, a significant factor in their implosions.
rpcorb 1y ago
Why don't they have a stake in the outcome anymore?
- rwmj 1y ago
  Because they won't be around for much longer, so they won't pay many taxes compared to someone aged 16. (For the record: Devil's advocate take. I think this whole idea of voting in proportion to your monetary value is ridiculous.)
  - jackvalentine 1y ago
    (For the record, I also think this voting in proportion to your monetary value is ridiculous.) I was more thinking however that their average life expectency doesn't allow for long-term consequences of elections to affect them.

hermannj314 1y ago

The essence of Democracy is voting for a bond measure whose principal you'll never live long enough to see paid down. Children voting will ruin the grift.

johneth 1y ago

16-year-olds do pay into the system. Some may have jobs or apprenticeships that pay them, for which they're directly taxed. Some may have started their own business, which will pay tax. All will pay VAT when they buy products and services.

Palmik 1y ago

Can you explain why you think that? Do you think person's voting power should be directly proportional to how much they pay in taxes? (Beyond the already indirect influence of money) In a very important sense, 16 year old has a much bigger stake in the future of their country than a 70 year old.

netbioserror 1y ago
>Do you think person's voting power should be directly proportional to how much they pay in taxes? Not quite, because that would grant power and influence to the rich that is already quite heavy on account of their wealth and ability to employ constituents. Qualifying voting power by way of being an active payer is, however, absolutely sensible. >A 16 year old has a much bigger stake in the future of their country than a 70 year old. They also have nothing to lose. With the least invested in a system's continuation, history is rich with young teenage raiders, conquerors, mutineers, revolutionaries, and rioters. They are the primary demographic with the lowest stake, and have the least concern for any Chesterton's fences. They are also the poorest equipped to make decisions concerning material resources, since utopian idealism is common at that age. They haven't yet suffered or built much at all, and it's easy for them to dismiss the sheer volume of accumulated knowledge, material, and labor that sustains civilization.