There is certainly an argument to be made along those lines - but then we regress to the state that Voting was originally, in which only the Landed Gentry (who owned land) had the right to vote and tended not to vote on policies that benefitted the lower classes.
At the same time however, the notion that one person, one vote - with no discriminating factor (ie test to determine ones eligibility to vote) also has it's downsides - the fact that has been outlined above (assuming it is valid - Source?) - where the 5% who contribute the 47% of tax to the government don't get 47% of the say in where/how it is spent.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
I think we made a huge step backwards somewhere along the line some time ago.
Don't you ever pull up at the lights & look to both sides of you & see carloads of people that are too stupid & non contributing to society to be allowed to vote. It happens to me all the time.
You should have to be in a certain tax bracket to be allowed to vote, that would ensure that only contributors got a say.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Superb, sir...
A novelist - Nevil Shute I think - once wrote about an evolved Australia ( yeah, oxymoron ) where there was a voting system where extra votes above the basic one were earned. Extra for service in armed forces, fire, police, ambo. Extra for employing above a certain number of people...you get the picture.
Memory has just chimed in - you could earn a max of four votes. A fifth was available by doing something extraordinary - like a VC.
May one day be worth revisting.
Being alive for long enough to be a certain age qualifies you to vote no more than it qualifies you to drive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks