4 ms·

I think people should be able to get up to 3 votes: 1. Veteran 2. Property ownership 3. Having children. If you dont hit 1 of those criteria, you dont get a

I think people should be able to get up to 3 votes: 1. Veteran 2. Property ownership 3. Having children. If you dont hit 1 of those criteria, you dont get a vote. You need skin in the game. Letting anyone vote is why “tax someone else, give me things” is such a popular platform. Politicians should have to hit maybe 2 out of 3.

ericmay 9mo ago
The main issue off the top of my head with property ownership is how you define property.
afavour 9mo ago
Property ownership seems like a pretty transparent way to disenfranchise the poor. In what way does a renter not have “skin in the game” compared to a homeowner?
iwontberude 9mo ago
We already tried this in America and it’s not the flex you think it is.
- Chris2048 9mo ago
  What did you try?
telesilla 9mo ago
Having children? Why not consider instead: teacher, healthcare professional, municipal worker, civil engineer, volunteer ...and all of the many other roles that make society. Being a parent isn't the only indicator of caring for others.
HansardExpert 9mo ago
I am none of these. I'm in my late 50's and have been paying income tax since I was 16. Sure, rescind my voting rights ... I'd like all my 40+ years taxes back please then.
- warkdarrior 9mo ago
  Did the government not provide you with services (roads, police, etc) in those 40+ years?
  - clankenfoot 9mo ago
    Taxation without representation? Hellooo, Earth calling Americans, are you there?
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
subscribed 9mo ago
Property ownership? Ooooh, this is how you tip the scales further away from the progressive policies. I own a house but I'd hate such setup.
bumby 8mo ago
I honestly can’t tell if this is satire, or if we’re running into a lack of civics education. In the US at least, political rights are considered inalienable, not rewards. The OPs point can be extended to giving more votes to people based on their “productivity” (ie income) to society and the absurdity becomes obvious to most.

ericmay 9mo ago

The main issue off the top of my head with property ownership is how you define property.

afavour 9mo ago

Property ownership seems like a pretty transparent way to disenfranchise the poor. In what way does a renter not have “skin in the game” compared to a homeowner?

iwontberude 9mo ago

We already tried this in America and it’s not the flex you think it is.

Chris2048 9mo ago
What did you try?

telesilla 9mo ago

Having children? Why not consider instead: teacher, healthcare professional, municipal worker, civil engineer, volunteer ...and all of the many other roles that make society. Being a parent isn't the only indicator of caring for others.

HansardExpert 9mo ago

I am none of these. I'm in my late 50's and have been paying income tax since I was 16. Sure, rescind my voting rights ... I'd like all my 40+ years taxes back please then.

warkdarrior 9mo ago
Did the government not provide you with services (roads, police, etc) in those 40+ years?
- clankenfoot 9mo ago
  Taxation without representation? Hellooo, Earth calling Americans, are you there?

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

subscribed 9mo ago

Property ownership? Ooooh, this is how you tip the scales further away from the progressive policies. I own a house but I'd hate such setup.

bumby 8mo ago

I honestly can’t tell if this is satire, or if we’re running into a lack of civics education. In the US at least, political rights are considered inalienable, not rewards. The OPs point can be extended to giving more votes to people based on their “productivity” (ie income) to society and the absurdity becomes obvious to most.