Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason
All this talk is interesting and futile; there won't be any restrictions on voting, as desirable as it may be to some of us here.
Me, I'd not do a test of the names of current office holders or restrict the voting rolls to landowners, but rather make the only eligible voters taxpayers (and I don't mean gasoline tax or sales tax). Those with an actual financial stake in the outcome--much like shareholders in a corporation. But even that is fraught with problems--those retired may still care about their country/state/locality, and those ineligible because they aren't earning enough money to pay taxes would remove a disproportional share of minorites.
It's still interesting to dream of ways to make a good system better.
|
Notably, sales tax in states that have it account for a good portion of state revenues. In Washington state alone the sales tax usually accounts for a quarter of the budget. That's pretty significant.
That said, I think voters who don't pay income taxes (such as myself, a student who doesn't make enough to pay taxes) have just as much or more stake in federal government. Those of us who live below the poverty line (yes, many of us college students do exist there) are dependent on government benefits of some kind to attempt and improve our existence, be it financial aid, food stamps, or health care programs. State-funded higher education regularly takes hits in the name of balancing the budget, and I get to watch my tuition rates go up. Yippee.
Universal enfranchisement is the only way to go. We've established that time and time again. The people have the right to be represented, and to choose their representation. In today's society, we have no other choice but to let everyone vote--and despite the fact that I may disagree with how some people vote, I strongly support voting rights and getting EVERYONE's vote out and counted.