earthworm said:Thank you, Kelzie
I really had to muddle my way though this.
I'm glad I asked the question, this is one area where I am a extremest.
But the "other side" arguments are too good to debate.
That a minority of people vote, IMO, is not good - enter reform...
AlbqOwl said:I would consider finding a way to amend the process so that those who will give of their time, talent, or personal property as a result of the vote will be the ones who are authorized to vote. Only tax payers should be able to vote to raise taxes for instance.
AlbqOwl said:I think voting should be a cherished privilege and right. I favor in person voter registration that includes ID or other proof of citizenship and I would consider finding a way to amend the process so that those who will give of their time, talent, or personal property as a result of the vote will be the ones who are authorized to vote. Only tax payers should be able to vote to raise taxes for instance. Every state should have fraudproof policies in effect as much as possible and should enforce them rigidly.
Plain old me said:Ordinarily I would say no to this, but the low turnout to the last election here in the UK (60.1%) coupled with the downfalls of the electoral system means that the government won with a mere 21% of the electorate supporting it.
I realise if people don't turnout, then its their own fault for this, but in nations where governments base their power on it having support of the people, mandatory voting would certainly lend a government more legitamacy, and people always have the option of spoiling their ballot paper if they decide the candidates are not worth voting for.
Like I say, I would ordinarily be fine to just let people who don't care not vote and leave more influence to those that do, but I think that the low turnout rates that seem to be affecting UK, and as far as I know US, elections means that something ought to be done, perhaps mandatory elections?
Kelzie said:It is a horrible idea to make people who know nothing about politics vote. More than likely they would randomly pick a candidate, who now has many more votes than he or she should.
Plain old me said:D'you think that would happen in such significant numbers as to make a difference? Perhaps if it was made clearer that it was possible to abstain?
Like I say, I'm stuck on this issue...people voting who have no idea of the consequences is a horrible idea, but I'm not too keen on a government being voted into power on such a small minority of the vote either.
Stupiderthanthou said:Wouldn't this be a straight ticket to the destruction of minority groups? How many people will raise their taxes to increase welfare even if the increase is needed? It seems to me to be asking a lot of voters, telling them to vote with consideration for the whole of their country. I don't see how it makes sense when you're leaving the very same people you're asking them to do a favor out of the vote.
DeeJayH said:does that mean that only welfare recipients get to vote on welfare reform
sounds like a recipe for disaster
AlbqOwl said:No, that isn't what I meant. What I meant is that if I am the one who is going to fund whatever for the benefit of somebody else, I should be the one who votes on the issue or initiative that provides it. If an issue will enrich you and cost you nothing, you should not be the one voting for it.
This is a stated principle only, and I know the difficulties inherent in implementing it. (Not that I advocate not trying something just because it is impossible.)
I don't think our elected representatives should be able to vote themselves a raise at any level of government. I think they should vote a raise but would not be eligible to receive any personal benefit from it until they are successfully re-elected in the next election.
These are all concepts that I think would greatly reduce the corruption that is currently inherent in the process.
Kelzie said:I have to say I disagree with this. Just because I am not funding something now, doesn't mean I won't be funding it in the future. And everybody who pays taxes funds these benefits, correct? I would venture a guess that the number of people who don't pay taxes and still votes is fairly small.
AlbqOwl said:But if you aren't paying taxes that fund it now, then you have absolutely nothing to lose by voting for funding. You are given power to make me pay for something that costs you absolutely nothing but which could benefit you greatly.
At such time as you acquire property that makes you liable for property taxes that provide funding, then your attitude about your vote may or may not change, but at least you would be paying the freight along with everybody else if a bond issue, etc. succeeds. Property owners are going to vote for schools and libraries and sewer systems and beautification, etc. because these things enhance the quality of life and increase their property values. But if they are the ones paying for it, they should be the ones who vote for it.
Kelzie said:Hardly. I'm not going to vote for an increase in taxes when I know with certainty I am going to be paying it in the future. Unless I feel it is justified of course. People should have the option on voting for things that are going to affect them in the future.
AlbqOwl said:Well, we'll just have to disagree on this one. :smile:
My libertarian soul just rejects a concept of somebody being able to force me to pay for something that benefits them when they are not paying for it themselves. What they presume their future circumstances to be should not be a factor I think.
Kelzie said:But why is that? If a generation of homeowners wants to raise the property tax to 50% and I am buying a home in 6 months, why should I not be allowed to vote on it?
AlbqOwl said:Well, if the homeowners want to raise the property tax to 50%, I'll want EVERYBODY to vote on it - and vote "NO!!!"
This is not the issue however. My issue is with those who contribute little or nothing being able to enrich themselves or improve their lives at my expense. I am of the group who thinks, without consent of the contributor, that it is immoral to confiscate the property of the citizen who earned it and give it to the citizen who didn't.
This concept of course does factor into my views on who should and should not have benefit of the vote on specific issues.
Kelzie said:But my situation is your issue. At this moment, I am contribution nothing to propery taxes. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't have a say in issues that will almost definitely affect me in the near future.
Answer my situation. If you were buying a house in 6 months and the vote on the table was rather to raise property taxes to 50%, would you just sit idly by because you aren't contributing to property taxes at this moment?
AlbqOwl said:No, because as it stands now, I am entitled to vote on anything that is voted on. So I would vote my self interest and in that case that could be a good thing in this one anecdotal incident.
But looking at the larger picture and principle involved, as a non-property owner, I would be voting on my own self-interest whatever that was without incurring any personal risk, consequence, or responsibility whatsoever. There is simply too much opportunity to exploit others in a system like that in order for me to agree that it is a good thing.
Kelzie said:I see where you're coming from. Really I do. Here's my thing. Most voting people vote on presedential elections. Voting on property tax increase is like, what, maybe 20% of the population? I can promise that the people voting on it are either property owners themselves, or educated enough to extrapolate what tax they will want when they own property. It is unfair to deny them the vote on something that will most definitely affect them in the future.