Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[charliebrown]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What if each person gets log(federal income tax paid) + 1 votes. Example I get 5 votes, Romney gets 7, non-tax payers 1. Want a lot of votes, pay a lot of taxes.
The rich get more votes anyhow as the system stands now. We can argue about the base of the log and the +1, but you get the idea.

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What if each person gets log(federal income tax paid) + 1 votes. Example I get 5 votes, Romney gets 7, non-tax payers 1. Want a lot of votes, pay a lot of taxes.
The rich get more votes anyhow as the system stands now. We can argue about the base of the log and the +1, but you get the idea.

I'm sure there's problems with this idea, but if you can't see the problems with our current system you are blind. The plus side would be that instead of buying the vote through advertising etc, you'd have to actually contribute to government to buy your votes. Seems much more beneficial.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What if each person gets log(federal income tax paid) + 1 votes. Example I get 5 votes, Romney gets 7, non-tax payers 1. Want a lot of votes, pay a lot of taxes.
The rich get more votes anyhow as the system stands now. We can argue about the base of the log and the +1, but you get the idea.

There's something compelling about ensuring that deadbeats don't vote, but determing what constitutes a deadbeat is problematic. Perhaps it should be based on paying taxes, but not specifically the income tax. There are a lot of hard-working people who don't earn enough to pay income tax but still have payroll taxes taken out of every paycheck.

What about all the formerly employed people who were laid off in the crash through no fault of their own and now don't earn anything?

What about the formerly married woman with small children who was abandoned by her husband? She's on welfare through no fault of her own, trying to hold her family together.

What about the elderly on Social Security, or the disabled who can't work?

Shall we deny these people the vote but allow the FIRE bastards who caused the AFC to determine the future of our country? I think not.

I'd rather see everybody who wants to vote take the naturalization test that immigrants have to take before becoming citizens. Administered in English only, but with accomodations for the handicapped. You'd see a lot of people who pay income taxes and have diplomas demonstrate that they're not qualified to have a voice in determining our affairs.

How Dumb Are We?

American Naturalization Test

Why are so many answers on the citizenship test wrong?

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perhaps there could be requirements to earn citizenship outside of simply being born here or abroad to US parents, which would disable various portions of the public from voting even more than is already the case (i.e. nobody under 18, the restraints on convicted felons, existing non-citizens, etc.).

The question seems to be: are you better off disenfranchising people who are ignorant or letting ignorant people vote. Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

You wouldn't give someone who can't read, write or do basic math the right to launch nuclear weapons, so why would you give that person a right to determine who does make that decision?

What about this as a first step: Every vote is a write in (type in). You can't just check the box for whichever party you decided to root for arbitrarily. You have to actually know who is running in each election.

Maybe the whole system should be run like an automated test at a computer station. To vote for dogcatcher you have to get the correct answer for 2+2. To vote for a tax levy you have to get the correct answer for 100 - .35x100. To vote for POTUS you have to answer several questions about US History.

At the very least we could require everyone to pass the naturalization test.

[DSpencer]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What about the formerly married woman with small children who was abandoned by her husband? She's on welfare through no fault of her own, trying to hold her family together.

Questions like this sound compelling, but think about it. If you can't on net contribute to society, why should you determine its direction?

A responsible parent doesn't let their children determine how to spend their paycheck. Whether to get a dog or pay the mortgage? Whether to fix the roof or buy a new tv?

Why should a person who won't be paying for any government services determine what they should be and more importantly, how much everyone else should pay for them?

This isn't some theoretical conversation about people voting themselves the treasury. It's happening right now.

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

Obamaphone.net.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

The question seems to be: are you better off disenfranchising people who are ignorant or letting ignorant people vote. Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

You wouldn't give someone who can't read, write or do basic math the right to launch nuclear weapons, so why would you give that person a right to determine who does make that decision?

What about this as a first step: Every vote is a write in (type in). You can't just check the box for whichever party you decided to root for arbitrarily. You have to actually know who is running in each election.

Maybe the whole system should be run like an automated test at a computer station. To vote for dogcatcher you have to get the correct answer for 2+2. To vote for a tax levy you have to get the correct answer for 100 - .35x100. To vote for POTUS you have to answer several questions about US History.

At the very least we could require everyone to pass the naturalization test.

Well the reality with any of those types of implementations is that you will always disallow people from voting for quite arbitrary reasons. What constitutes a fair math question? Or a fair history question? Those are not even relevant skills or knowledge for being an informed citizen. However, there may be some merit in having only write-ins, because you would absolutely have to at least know the name of the person you are voting for, and that would eliminate the political party shortcutting that so many people admit to using (vote all D or all R on a ballot).

I was thinking something more along the lines of a verifiable activity that would could earn citizenship. But again it's a tricky issue because there are very few ways to verify that someone is an informed person capable of making informed decisions. Fundamentally I think voting should be left up to informed citizens only, not merely interested citizens, but designing a system in which people are filtered between informed and uninformed is an impossible task because there really is no such thing as a perfectly informed citizen or a perfectly ignorant citizen. Which shade of grey do we paint with?

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Questions like this sound compelling, but think about it. If you can't on net contribute to society, why should you determine its direction?

A woman raising her children is contributing to society.

A responsible parent doesn't let their children determine how to spend their paycheck. Whether to get a dog or pay the mortgage? Whether to fix the roof or buy a new tv?

Why should a person who won't be paying for any government services determine what they should be and more importantly, how much everyone else should pay for them?

This isn't some theoretical conversation about people voting themselves the treasury. It's happening right now.

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

Obamaphone.net.

There's a popular misconception that all welfare mothers are deadbeats trying to game the system, having babies out of wedlock just to get "free" money. In actuality, most welfare recipients are abandoned by their husbands, left to fend for themselves and their children without support. So deadbeat dads can vote as long as they pay income tax, while the mothers, saddled with children for which they can't find or afford childcare, unable to work under those conditions, are "non-productive" and unworthy of the vote? Are you also going to make it so men who don't pay child support can't vote?

There was a time when women who left their children in childcare in order to work were derided as bad mothers. Now, if they stay at home to care for their children they're derided as non-productive citizens. So which is it?

What about the woman who worked all her life, who was "productive" in your book, then loses her husband through no fault of her own (like I did)? Without my husband's income I don't earn enough to pay income taxes but I do pay payroll tax. Under the current tax code I even get a refund. I didn't write the bloody tax code and I'm smarter than most people I know (iTulip company excepted) but in your mind I'm unworthy to vote.

You're right. This ISN'T theoretical at all.

[Prazak]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Questions like this sound compelling, but think about it. If you can't on net contribute to society, why should you determine its direction?

A responsible parent doesn't let their children determine how to spend their paycheck. Whether to get a dog or pay the mortgage? Whether to fix the roof or buy a new tv?

Why should a person who won't be paying for any government services determine what they should be and more importantly, how much everyone else should pay for them?

This isn't some theoretical conversation about people voting themselves the treasury. It's happening right now.

http://youtu.be/tpAOwJvTOio

Obamaphone.net.

How about people on social security, or disability? If someone is a net liability on public finances why should they determine the direction of society?

How about liars? If someone can't be trusted to tell the truth, why should they be trusted to cast a truthful ballot?

How about people who cheat at games or business, or who cut in line at the grocery store or on the exit ramp? If someone refuses to follow the rules in their personal life, why should they be allowed to influence the rules of the general public?

How about people who have terminal illness? If they're going to be dead in a few months, and thus not contributing anything to society, why should they affect the course of the next government?

Slopes are slippery. Be careful about wishing to disenfranchise people based on your view of the merits.

[cjppjc]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

................

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

A woman raising her children is contributing to society.



There's a popular misconception that all welfare mothers are deadbeats trying to game the system, having babies out of wedlock just to get "free" money. In actuality, most welfare recipients are abandoned by their husbands, left to fend for themselves and their children without support. So deadbeat dads can vote as long as they pay income tax, while the mothers, saddled with children for which they can't find or afford childcare, unable to work under those conditions, are "non-productive" and unworthy of the vote? Are you also going to make it so men who don't pay child support can't vote?

There was a time when women who left their children in childcare in order to work were derided as bad mothers. Now, if they stay at home to care for their children they're derided as non-productive citizens. So which is it?

What about the woman who worked all her life, who was "productive" in your book, then loses her husband through no fault of her own (like I did)? Without my husband's income I don't earn enough to pay income taxes but I do pay payroll tax. Under the current tax code I even get a refund. I didn't write the bloody tax code and I'm smarter than most people I know (iTulip company excepted) but in your mind I'm unworthy to vote.

You're right. This ISN'T theoretical at all.

What DSpencer has done is fall into a quite common fallacy about economic activity and reality in general. It is an undeniable fact that not all economic activity is accounted for via monetary transactions. You are quite right that being a mother is a contribution to society, because raising children is still the most important job on the planet using the metric of human species survival. Yet you will never see the labor done by, for example, stay-at-home mothers to raise their children and maintain the household in terms of wages. Yet you will see that labor in terms of wages if it is outsourced to a nanny or housekeeper, even though the work done is essentially identical. A simpler example is mowing the lawn--if you do it with your own capital and labor (lawnmower, gasoline and elbow grease), then it is seen as merely a consumer's consumption of resources. Yet if that same lawn is mowed by a professional service or even the neighbor's kid who gets paid for it, then it is seen as part of the service sector economy!

These examples illustrate that reality is often divorced from common perception or common "economic" theories. That is why it is incredibly difficult to come up with any metric other than "one person, one vote" and have it be considered fair by even a majority of people.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What DSpencer has done is fall into a quite common fallacy about economic activity and reality in general. It is an undeniable fact that not all economic activity is accounted for via monetary transactions. You are quite right that being a mother is a contribution to society, because raising children is still the most important job on the planet using the metric of human species survival. Yet you will never see the labor done by, for example, stay-at-home mothers to raise their children and maintain the household in terms of wages. Yet you will see that labor in terms of wages if it is outsourced to a nanny or housekeeper, even though the work done is essentially identical. A simpler example is mowing the lawn--if you do it with your own capital and labor (lawnmower, gasoline and elbow grease), then it is seen as merely a consumer's consumption of resources. Yet if that same lawn is mowed by a professional service or even the neighbor's kid who gets paid for it, then it is seen as part of the service sector economy!

These examples illustrate that reality is often divorced from common perception or common "economic" theories. That is why it is incredibly difficult to come up with any metric other than "one person, one vote" and have it be considered fair by even a majority of people.

That's why I suggested the citizenship/naturalization test to demonstrate a reasonable level of intelligence and a basic knowledge of civics. It's fair and impartial, like a written driver's test that's required for getting a driver's license.

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

A test, especially a federally-administered one, only serves to prove that one has studied for the test. The extremely basic knowledge required to pass the citizenship/naturalization test can be read, remembered, regurgitated during the test, and then completely data dumped afterwards. Only if such a test is followed by an activity that reinforces that knowledge, then it will serve to provide some measure of competence in civics.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

A test, especially a federally-administered one, only serves to prove that one has studied for the test. The extremely basic knowledge required to pass the citizenship/naturalization test can be read, remembered, regurgitated during the test, and then completely data dumped afterwards. Only if such a test is followed by an activity that reinforces that knowledge, then it will serve to provide some measure of competence in civics.

Immigrants who become citizens are usually better citizens than people born here who take their citizenship for granted. If an ignorant voter has to study and practice for a test, the hope is they might actually learn something in the process and value their vote more. Test questions should be improved upon to eliminate the fluff and emphasize the nuts and bolts of our system.

The whole process would work to show people that voting is important- important enough to require some effort on their part. People might learn to listen to campaign promises with a more discerning ear, take some pride in their accomplishment and not be so willing to throw it away.

The laziest, most self-absorbed people will not want to trouble themselves and won't participate. Good riddance to bad rubbish. At least a test isn't subject to biases that would exclude people due to factors such as personal wealth.

Your point about needing to follow up with civic-minded activity is well-taken, but there will never be a perfect solution. Perfection is the enemy of the "good enough".

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

The laziest, most self-absorbed people will not want to trouble themselves

Are you describing the top 1/10 of the one-percenters. Their voting record is hardly stellar . . .

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

What are corporations, c1ue? Did you know that they are comprised of people and owned by people?

Corporations are not people. By your logic, we're all red blood cells, because we're composed of red blood cells.

Neither do corporations behave like people: they don't go to jail, they don't die of natural causes, they have no conscience or morals, etc etc.

You seem to think money is equivalent to voting.

Yes, I do consider money equivalent to votes - not voting. Money buys votes.

Are you seriously going to disagree with this statement?

And while money will not buy my vote, the reality is that it will buy someone's votes.

To say that because the former statement is true and thus the latter statement is true is a logical fallacy.

I believe that people should be held accountable for their actions, up to and including their actions under the influence of their own ignorance when voting, when buying unsafe products even when they are approved by the FDA, and etc. I cannot think of a single circumstance in which people at the age of majority should not be subjected to the naked, unfiltered consequences of their actions, including how they vote no matter what information they were given. What I believe in is an informed, responsible citizen.

The problem with trying to identify an 'informed, responsible citizen' is that this is exactly the excuse used innumerable times to disenfranchise those of inimicable political leanings. Because it is so very easy to manipulate the definition of informed and/or responsible.

If the problem is money is distorting the views of the 'uninformed' or 'irresponsible', why not just remove the money? Far easier to remove the money than the other side of the equation.

Personally I don't see why you have such a problem with it, or why you are more interested in removing potential voters rather than removing pernicious influences on voters.