Voter Criteria

Define "skin in the game"

Or are you talking about chickens and pigs ?

hamilton

"To have "skin in the game" is to have incurred monetary risk by being invested in achieving a goal."

From Wikipedia, and says exactly what I wanted the term to convey. Mikek

I've always opined that government employees should not be able to vote on any ballot that would affect their employment status or income. For instance, teachers should not be able to vote on local bond issues. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142   Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

For balance, _everyone's_ opinion is important, not just those with a dollar at stake.

I have always felt that prospective voters should be required to pass an intelligence test at least every 4 years.

No further comment.

So, active duty and retired military lose their franchise in federal elections? *That's* gonna go over well ...

Nor should anyone who is not a propery tax payer vote on issues which effect property taxes, like school bonds. Nor should city folk vote on issues which only effect rural areas. Art

Your last sentence probably doesn't happen much at the voter level... but happens a lot in the state legislatures... unfortunately.

Personally I'm very much libertarian-leaning. "Higher" education should be privatized... the state should only be involved in awarding scholarships based on MERIT. Climate and energy "science" would then vanish ;-) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142   Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

And you think we have balance now? Oh maybe, about 50% don't pay taxes and about 50% do. Mikek

No problem, "I'll create and exception". I'll probably exempt most people on SS but not SSI. Anything else? Mikek

Since it takes wealth to incur monetary risk, you are simply saying you have to have some wealth to vote. That's been done before. And it was argued about quite vigorously before writing our Constitution.

Jon

Can we start with government Unions? That's a circle jerk if there ever was one! Mikek

Or get conscripted to fight to keep invaders from getting their hands on yo ur dollars (and your daughters).

This just another variation of the property holder franchise, which used to apply in more or less every English-speaking country. Now that you know th is, you might want to find out why they broadened the electorate. You could find the reasoning educational.

So what. Federal income taxes are - in large part - forced payments into a defence fund to pay for a standing army, whihc is another way of minimising life's uncertainties.

intelligence test at least every 4 years.

It might also be good if they also demonstrated that they had some idea of why their system of government works the way it does now, which does requir e some knowledge of the way it used to work in earlier times. Those who don 't understand history are condemned to recapitulate it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Since you seem to want to re-invigorate it, I'll add something and then walk away and just watch. No longer care to convince anyone, one way or the other. But I don't mind stirring pots.

I almost like Heinlein's approach -- if you haven't served a part of your life in __volunteer__ Federal service, you don't have the full rights of citizenship (ability to vote or hold office.) Starship Troupers is his story about showing what he felt it took to create a citizen worthy of the right to vote or hold office. Heinlein's approach doesn't require wealth. It asks the same personal time investment from rich and poor, alike.

All this stuff was argued vociferously during the early and mid parts of 1787, before finishing the writing of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Since then, things have changed (we vote for Senators now, but didn't back then.)

Making voting based upon wealth is an old question. During the US Constitutional Convention in Philidelphia, Gouverneur Morris said (you can find Bancroft's books on this topic [it's a 2-volume set] on Google Books, by the way):

"The ignorant and the dependent can be as little trusted with the public "In future times, a great majority of the people will not only be without property in land, but property of any sort. These will either combine under the influence of their common situation, in which case the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands, or, what is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition; in which case, there will be equal danger on another side."

You would, I suppose, find little difficulty with the above world view.

Ben Franklin said, just 3 days later, on August 10th of 1787:

"I dislike everything that tends to debase the spirit of the common people. If honesty is often the companion of wealth, and if poverty is exposed to peculiar temptation, the possession of property increases the desire for more. Some of the greatest rogues I was ever acquainted with were the richest rogues. Remember, the scripture requires in rulers that they should be men hating covetousness. If this constitution should betray a great partiality to the rich, it will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most liberal and enlightened men in Europe, but discourage the common people from removing to this country."

In the end, Ben Franklin's opinion and that of others who agreed with him, together with the opinions of Madison and Morris and others, were cobbled together into what we have today. There is NO wealth test, but the States were left to devise methods of selecting their Senators, for example, leaving significant power in the hands of those wealthy enough to have regular access to education and power.

That week in early to mid August was quite a week, by the way. A lot of world views about wealth and poor and their various peculiarities were exposed in plain view. And there wasn't much agreement. Enough to get things done, but not a lot. There was a divide and significant prejudices all around about those who they understand poorly and that division of perspectives continues to this day and is just as incorrect and false today as it was then. (And I'm speaking about the views that each have of the other; both are false and born from a lack of understanding.)

Jon

You could find the reasoning educational.

I'm aware of what has preceded us. But I like the argument and if "we" could have just 40 years, maybe we could get back closer to where we started, and save the country.

I wish that was all we paid for, Entitlements take 90% of all the tax money that is collected. Look it up, never mind I'll do it, I found some data here,

If you don't trust Heritage, the government source page is listed.

In 2012 tax revenue collected was 2.435 Trillion and entitlement spending was 2.053 Trillion, that's 84% of tax revenue. Sorry I was a little off, back when I constructed my total for entitlements I think included military retirement costs, the numbers on this page don't. Also note: Defense spending is 27.4% of tax revenue.

84% + 27.4% is 111.4%, How does that work? We borrowed 1.13 Trillion.

Mikek

Yea, me to, me to. LOL

Not necessarily wealth, I just want you to pay some federal taxes. Lots of people make good money pay taxes and a have negative net worth. Some countries live that way. Not sure how long they survive though. Mikek

You pay federal taxes if your income is sufficient. If your income is that sufficient, you are probably also in possession of wealth in this country.

If their parents were poor and they are young, yes.

....

Jon

n

d to > > apply in more or less every English-speaking country. Now that you know

In fact, what you had in 1776 and for a quite few years after that.

What you had was Tammany Hall - amongst many similar organisations - and yo ir country is a long way from being saved from them and their heirs and suc cessors. Your constitution was a fairly early attempt at moderately represe ntative democracy. More modern constitutions - like the one Germany got in

1948 - work a whole lot better. What France has got was written later - 195 8 - but it was heavily influenced de Gaulle and reflect his particular inte rests and prejudices.

o a > > defense fund to pay for a standing army, which is another way of mi nimizing > > life's uncertainties.

The Heritage Foundation is right wing think tank. If you trust their propag anda, you probably think that James Arthur can think straight.

With the very sensible aim of avoiding a rerun of The Great Depression. Sad ly, you didn't borrow enough at the start, so you stayed in recession longe r than you should have done, and had to keep on borrowing for longer before the economy got going again.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney