Conduct an exit poll test on the issues and you will be sorely disappointed - but enough of that.

How do the uninformed vote?

I suggest that they back a national minimum wage, they believe that there are no rich Democrats, that safe spaces are necessary and that "someone else" will pay for their healthcare. A policy means treatment happens, guns kill, and we need cameras everywhere to stop crime. Police in the schools are a wonderful idea. Trump is a Fascist and bad, Bernie is a socialist and therefore good. What do you mean, what's the difference?

Others?

The thing is: voting never was intended to be for the masses. If you expect someone to think about their vote, they need to be involved in society. Originally, voting was restricted to property owners.

A modern, and fairer restriction would be: you can only vote if you pay more in taxes than you receive in government pay-outs. If you aren't helping fund government, you don't get a say in how the government spends its money.

The Free Shit Army doesn't get to vote for more free shit. Government salaries and pensions count too: most government employees and retirees won't be voting either, and for good reason.

This year the choice will be between a New York social Progressive cronie capitalist whose success is due to family connections and a New York social Progressive cronie capitalist whose success is due to family connections - The Cackle versus The Combover.

Even in this dire hour, I see no one on this planet who should decide who can or cannot vote.

Linking Reynolds in an early comment yet again. Call it optimism, but I think good people grow up eventually... But for media-handling in both old and new platforms, we just seem to be relying on people who haven't had a chance.

I mean... Who you callin' "dipshit"? Would you say it to their face?

Whether you got black eyes in reply or not, would you expect it to help?

Amy,
This post made me think of Cathy today. I found you through her. It's nice how you keep her memory alive. I hope her daughter is doing well.

I don't have to "decide" who can and cannot vote, because so many of them don't show up at the polling place -- to give me a black eye or do anything else.

Crid writes: I see no one on this planet who should decide who can or cannot vote.

Not on an individual basis, no. By means of some degree of qualification, why not?

We are right at the cusp, where more than half of the population pays no federal taxes. People who pay no taxes have, as a group, no incentive to control expenditures - they are spending other people's money.

If you don't like the qualification of paying net taxes, there are plenty of alternatives. Pass a quiz on current events of importance. Demonstrate a basic level of education. Have held a regular, full-time job for more than a year. Be married to the same partner for more than a year. Anything, anything at all that shows there is a chance, however slight, that you may take a long-term perspective, and put actual thought into casting your vote.

Suggest a 1953 novel called 'In the Wet', by Nevil Shute, for an interesting concept for graduated voting power based on societal contributions.

llater,

llamas

Call me a tinfoil hat wearer, but I'd like to see how many A-list celebrities and billionaires vote. I'll bet they don't actually have to, as they fund the politicians and control the narrative to begin with.

"Even in this dire hour, I see no one on this planet who should decide who can or cannot vote."

We kind of already do that, though. We don't let children or the mentally institutionalized vote. In most states, we don't let convicted felons vote. And in theory, we don't let non-citizens vote. So it's not like voting is or ever has been a universal right.

I would do this one thing: if you accept an Earned Income Tax Credit payment, you are ineligible to vote until after the next federal Congressional election. If you qualify for the EITC, you have the option of refusing it and retaining your right to vote.

I'll see llamas's suggestion and raise you with this:

http://www.amazon.com/Starship-Troopers-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0441783589/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463147468&sr=8-1&keywords=starship+troopers

The problem for the Free Shit Army is that they eventually run out of other people's money. And when that happens, you can't even find decent paper to wipe with...

Do we really want to tie voting to need? If you're poor enough or desperate enough, you can't vote.

Granted, there's some logic to that. We require people with security clearances to keep their credit clean so they never become desperate enough to be coerced into doing something that endangers national security. Credit officers in banks are required to have good credit.

But as a nation, a democracy (democratic republic), are we really upholding democratic ideals by denying the vote to anyone in need of public assistance? What if the need is only temporary?

Our founders limited the vote to property owners in general in order to ensure that voters had an economic stake in the country's welfare and the maturity to vote sensibly.

According to the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation:

Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value. Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes. Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40.

Such requirements tended to delay a male colonist's entry into the voter ranks until he was settled down and established. They reflected the belief that freeholders, as property owners were called, had a legitimate interest in a community's success and well-being, paid taxes and deserved a voice in public affairs, had demonstrated they were energetic and intelligent enough to be trusted with a role in governance, and had enough resources to be independent thinkers not beholden to the wealthiest class. English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s:

The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.

By that reckoning, the person on public need is beholden to society and not to a benefactor who could unduly influence his or her vote.

Benjamin Franklin lampooned the idea of limiting the vote to property owners:

Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?

And in an age when the franchise was limited to property owners, voter turnout was low as voting required effort. A man had to travel to the courthouse, pay for food a lodging along the way, and lose time working on his business or farm. As a result, not everyone who could vote did.

Robert Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, postulated a government in which the franchise was limited to veterans, those who had sacrificed for the community. The business-man father of the main character is lampooned as weak and foolish - because he has not served. Yet there is nothing in the historic record to indicate that military expertise automatically conveys diplomatic expertise or economic expertise.

Suggestions of limited franchise are usually put forth by those who believe that the entitled franchisees under such a system would vote more in line with the thinking of the proposer.

Winston Churchill said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Yet, he was its most ardent defender, contending that democracy was "the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Democracy is messy. The only way to clean it up is to destroy it.

I see no reason to plead with people to vote.

Suggestions as to what types of qualifications we should have in order to vote are fun but useless. Anyhow, both literacy and means tests will be changed and manipulated by whoever is controlling things at the moment. Maybe the answers to those current affairs test are actually opinions on events versus straight facts. Maybe the minimum income is the average of whatever families in the good neighborhoods make... and so on.

I do like requiring photo ID.

When I'm Queen of the World, I'm not letting anyone who disagrees with me on anything vote. Also, I'm going to have Henry Cavill as my pool boy.

We don't have a pure democracy Conan. And for exactly that reason. Also "By that reckoning, the person on public need is beholden to society and not to a benefactor who could unduly influence his or her vote." is wrong. They could be unduly influenced by the politician who controls their benefits. Hence the 'free shit army'.

Heinlein's government has to be taken in the context of the world he depicted it in. That was a society that was in an existential war and had been for generations. Without a military willing to fight and die to protect it the species would end. Whatever Heinlein's intentions he merely depicted a situation where military personnel were highly valuable and thus able to exact concessions on the rest of society.

As an alternative look at Cherryh's Council of Nine. A coalition government made of up different societal classes (Science, Defense, Trade, State, Citizens, Information, Industry, Internal Affairs and Finance). Each citizen only votes for the representatives in their societal class.

I have no problem with idiots voting. God knows, there are enough of them holding political office.

My concern is that a Byzantine labrith of laws, levels of government and unelected bureaucracies have allowed both the voters, and the office holders to escape both the short and long term consequences of those votes.
Whether they be for more environmental laws, oversized pensions for public employees, or slight of hand financing schemes for public works projects that rob Peter to pay Paul.

The system has been engineered to avoid accountability for anyone until the whole edifice collapses in a pile of rust.
A reckoning is coming, and it is going to destroy both the welfare state, and most of the middle class.

A modern, and fairer restriction would be: you can only vote if you pay more in taxes than you receive in government pay-outs. If you aren't helping fund government, you don't get a say in how the government spends its money.

it would be interesting if only the states that put more money into the Treasury than they take out were the only ones allotted electoral votes.

would be interesting if only the states that put more money into the Treasury than they take out were the only ones allotted electoral votes.

Kevin at May 13, 2016 9:01 AM

Only a complete rube would believe these stories about net taker states verses net giver states, which often appear in People magazine and The Nation for a reason.

It all depends on what you count as coming from the Feds, and what you count as going to the Feds.

It would be extremely interesting to try and develop a workable metric for a scheme like that,

Start with what qualifies as a payment into the treasury, and what qualifies as a receipt?

Do Federal salaries paid directly to Federal workers in a state qualify as the state receiving money from the Feds?

How about matching highway funds, which are supposed to be a trust apart from the budgeting process? Paid for by fuel taxes?

Perhaps Nevada should get slammed for having a thousand miles of interstate highway maintained largely at Federal expense mostly for the benefit of products coming out of California, and going in, while happy Rhode Island skates because of their 50 miles of Interstate?

How about all the other funding that goes to run National parks and wilderness areas? (60 percent of Wyoming is directly owned by the Federal government.)

What about federal funding for planned parenthood, and Medicaid? Does that count? How about college loans and grants?

What about big corporations who have their headquarters in one state, but do most their manufacturing and make most of their money overseas? Does the state get slammed for the unlucky happenstance or do they get credit because the companies state tax liability is a tiny fraction of what the Feds get from the company?

Only a complete rube would believe these stories about net taker states verses net giver states, which often appear in People magazine and The Nation for a reason.

Rube I may be, but I'm not a rube who reads People magazine, so I can't speak to economic reports in that august publication, which I assumed (incorrectly, it seems) was focused more on the to-ing and fro-ing of what passes for celebrity.

As you point out, there are various matrices used in these reports. But surely it stands to reason that if some people take out more from the federal purse than they put in, some states do the same.

If we're discussing basing the vote on "helping fund government," and we have an electoral college, it's not an unreasonable to extrapolate the notion of individual votes to state electors.

Hey, Amy... that link to CathyS work is throwing me all sorts of server errors... do you have a different one. Frontpage themselves don't have an archive that old...

"My concern is that a Byzantine labrith of laws, levels of government and unelected bureaucracies have allowed both the voters, and the office holders to escape both the short and long term consequences of those votes. "

This. It's ironic -- although not unintended -- that as the right to vote is expanded, the citizens' actual ability to direct the government through voting is being weakened. Vast swaths of government policy are now owned by the bureaucratic state and are beyond the influence of citizens. It doesn't matter who we elect, nothing at the EPA or the IRS or the TSA is going to change, because they have succeeded in establishing a quid pro quo relationship with the legislative and judicial branches -- something the Founders didn't anticipate. I'm really starting to think that a Constitutional convention is the only possible non-violent way out of this death spiral.

"As youpoint out, there are various matrices used in these reports. But surely it stands to reason that if some people take out more from the federal purse than they put in, some states do the same."

No *state* pays taxes to the Federal government. Only individuals and corporations within those states do so. All state governments receive money from from the federal government. Some earmarked with strings, some not. Some federal money goes directly back to certain people who file taxes, including Undocumented foreign nationals residing in the US. Some goes directly to local school districts, federal Indian reservations, and Veterans Hospitals.

Should those these exchanges be counted as the same for the purpose of simplistically picking winners and losers?

Since residency is such a mailable concept, both legally and as a practicality, trying to determine which people in which states get back more tax dollars than they put in, is a fools errand.

The studies are garbage, put together by a bunch of hapless 27 year old journalists who can't even do their own income tax, or calculate the interest rate on their credit cards.

There is nothing simple or straightforward about the ebb and flow of Federal dollars. It is designed, with malice to be obscure.

*Money is fungible*

The electoral college is enshrined in the Constitution. Thank God we live in a Republic, and not a democracy, at least for now.

Too many people like you, are voting. The electoral college provides some protection for the rest of us.

It is about the only thing holding back mob rule. That is essentially all a simple democracy is. 50.01 percent on every issue, gets their way.

The studies are garbage, put together by a bunch of hapless 27 year old journalists who can't even do their own income tax, or calculate the interest rate on their credit cards.

I'm curious how you know that.

It would be interesting if only the states that put more money into the Treasury than they take out were the only ones allotted electoral votes. ~ Kevin at May 13, 2016 9:01 AM

A lot of those "net taker" states have military bases, national parks, and other federalized lands in them as well as federally-mandated expenses.

Isab covered most of this with the comment on interstate highways et al, so I won't reinvent the wheel here.

As an alternative look at Cherryh's Council of Nine. A coalition government made of up different societal classes (Science, Defense, Trade, State, Citizens, Information, Industry, Internal Affairs and Finance). Each citizen only votes for the representatives in their societal class. ~ Ben at May 13, 2016 8:08 AM

I'll check that out, though my sci-fi reading days are mostly behind me.

Heinlein's government has to be taken in the context of the world he depicted it in. That was a society that was in an existential war and had been for generations. ~ Ben at May 13, 2016 8:08 AM

The world depicted in Starship Troopers was not at war until attacked. Admittedly, it has been a while since I read it, so I cannot debate the "existential war" part of your comment.

Heinlein's philosophy is interesting, especially his contention that a fully-formed human being should be able to do certain things, not all of them pretty.

We don't have a pure democracy Conan. And for exactly that reason. Also "By that reckoning, the person on public need is beholden to society and not to a benefactor who could unduly influence his or her vote." is wrong. They could be unduly influenced by the politician who controls their benefits. Hence the 'free shit army'. ~ Ben at May 13, 2016 8:08 AM

Hence my "democratic republic" aside.

The politician who controls their benefits represents society, for better or worse. Once you begin restricting who can and cannot vote, for whatever reason, you begin the process of creating a one-party state.

The fact that "takers" can vote into office those who would continue and expand their benefits to the detriment of society is a possibility that de Tocqueville warned about in Democracy in America, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

He also noted that, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

Ayn Rand's fictional counter revolution to the socialist revolution is becoming reality. Those who pay high taxes have already implemented tax avoidance strategies and stashed money overseas - kinda like tax avoidance in the EU where avoiding the VAT consumes a great deal of economic energy, energy that could otherwise be used for productive, and taxable, activities. Do we really want the bulk of our nation's economic energy put into tax avoidance?

I do like requiring photo ID. ~ ahw at May 13, 2016 7:55 AM

I think requiring a voter to show ID is not unreasonable.

"I'm curious how you know that.

Kevin at May 13"

I'm not at all curious why you don't. I think I know why.

I've already explained in detail why calculating federal dollars that *go in* to the states is a meaningless number. Since the states don't, as an entity, *pay out* to the federal treasury.

Repeating it, obviously isn't going to help.

If you are looking for my *credentials* to validate my opinion, a quick google search of Amy's web site should tell you what you need to know.

Oh, I've got Kevin's number. Kevin, aren't you the one who so loved pointing out that most of the Southern states* are "net takers" of Federal dollars? And you hate the idea of vouchers, because public money might go to parochial schools?
Kevin dislikes the South, and dislikes Christians.

I've already explained in detail why calculating federal dollars that *go in* to the states is a meaningless number. Since the states don't, as an entity, *pay out* to the federal treasury.

We'll have to disagree that it's a meaningless number; I think it's indeed significant, particularly when it comes to talking about the per capita number of people on the federal dole (rather than money for interstate highways, etc.).

Food stamp/SNAP recipients per capita, for instance, is a meaningful number indeed, if you care where your tax money is going.

Hey, look! Socialism!
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/venezuela-is-falling-apart/481755/

Oh, I've got Kevin's number. Kevin, aren't you the one who so loved pointing out that most of the Southern states* are "net takers" of Federal dollars? And you hate the idea of vouchers, because public money might go to parochial schools?
Kevin dislikes the South, and dislikes Christians.

No, to my knowledge I've never pointed that out. As Isab demonstrates, there are many matrices by which "net takers" can be measured.

I despise the idea of vouchers, for the same reason I despise the idea that food stamps should be able to be spent on private restaurants.

Nor do I dislike the South, or Christians. I'm not sure where you got those ideas from anything I've ever said or written.

"stamp/SNAP recipients per capita, for instance, is a meaningful number indeed, if you care where your tax money is going.
Kevin at May 13, 2016 12:49 PM

Those programs are only partially federally funded. The states get to determine eligibility for food stamps, AFDC, and also Medicaid.

Mostly these studies have been used by blue state residing journalists to beat people who live in Republican voting red states like Nebraska over the head with the supposed moral and financial superiority of the democratic voting (and insolvent blue states)

And they use federal dollars that fund Indian hospitals, the BLM, the VA, national parks, and the interstate highways to job the studies to show what they want. If you want to do a welfare comparison, do a straight welfare comparison, on a state by state and individual basis.

California is the number one federal revenue sucker for welfare and Texas is close behind. Gee, I wonder why?

"I despise the idea of vouchers, for the same reason I despise the idea that food stamps should be able to be spent on private restaurants."

How do you feel about them being used at privately owned grocery stores and convenience stores?

And, what's the moral and philosophical difference between a deli in a grocery store, and a privately owned franchise, like McDonalds?

@kevin- My apologies, then. Perhaps it was the guy who got banned ("butthole" something-or-other) who repeated linked to some stat site that claimed that all of the Southern states, with the exception of Texas, were "net takers."

But am I to understand that you prefer to continue to dump money into failing public schools that fail to meet their basic functions, rather than see *any* public money go to private institutions that do a good job? Why? How is that a good investment of public money?

Those programs are only partially federally funded. The states get to determine eligibility for food stamps, AFDC, and also Medicaid.

This is absolutely true.

Mostly these studies have been used by blue state residing journalists to beat people who live in Republican voting red states like Nebraska over the head with the supposed moral and financial superiority of the democratic voting (and insolvent blue states)

I'm not concerned with "red" or "blue."

California is the number one federal revenue sucker for welfare and Texas is close behind. Gee, I wonder why?

I don't know. I think one-third of all welfare recipients in the U.S. are in California, but that's not balancing per capita.

How do you feel about them being used at privately owned grocery stores and convenience stores?

I'm unconcerned about it. I'm more concerned about what they're allowed to be spent on.

But am I to understand that you prefer to continue to dump money into failing public schools that fail to meet their basic functions, rather than see *any* public money go to private institutions that do a good job? Why? How is that a good investment of public money?

This assumes that all public schools are failing and all private institutions do a good job. But I have no interest in dumping tax dollars into private schools any more than I do into private parks, simply because the public parks are poorly maintained by those who use them.

"This assumes that all public schools are failing and all private institutions do a good job."
No, it doesn't.
The way my state has tried to implement vouchers is: Students in attendance zones for failing schools would have the option of using vouchers, either to fund private school tuition *or* to fund a transfer to a better district. (Many of the very good public schools are quite willing to take out-of-district transfers, but some of them charge a little.) It's a more effective use of public money.

"The politician who controls their benefits represents society, for better or worse."

That is after they get elected. Before they only represent themselves.

I only brought up Cherryh's Union government since we are talking about fictional governments. Her Chanur and Cyteen/Regenesis series are her best work in my opinion. Mind she writes in a first person style. So all of the wider universe is only depicted as that person views it.

It's been a while since I read Starship Troopers as well. But as I recall by the start of the book they had been at war for generations. I also didn't put much credence in the 'attacked first' claim. After all they happily nuked a third party government's cities since they weren't supporting the earth gov's side enough.

"If you aren't helping fund government, you don't get a say "

Absolutely true. Also, you should get more votes if you have more money.

Rich people are the only people smart enough to run society. Like the Menendez brothers, or the Koch brothers, or George Soros, or Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton.

Rich = smart and good. Not rich = stupid and evil.

Robert Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, postulated a government in which the franchise was limited to veterans, those who had sacrificed for the community. The business-man father of the main character is lampooned as weak and foolish - because he has not served. Yet there is nothing in the historic record to indicate that military expertise automatically conveys diplomatic expertise or economic expertise. - Conan

Exactly, and in his book Heinlein said exactly that. What he also said was such people while not being experts at such matters had proven themselves willing to put aside their personal needs/goals for the betterment of all of society, resulting in a government run by people proven to be more altruistic than the average person

Also in Heinleins world the only thing veterans had that citizens did not was the right to vote, all other rights of a free society were theirs, including the right to protest that government

Heinlein's government has to be taken in the context of the world he depicted it in. That was a society that was in an existential war and had been for generations. - Ben

Heinlein's government has to be taken in the context of the world he depicted it in. That was a society that was in an existential war and had been for generations. - Ben

No, there were at peace when he signed up

Okay, guys - the engineering world sometimes uses two models to predict the behavior of a system, starting with one extreme and then the other. This is useful because, even though real performance is in the middle somewhere, the extremes clarify thought about the process.

For instance, regarding the vote: one extreme would be to consider only property owners with ZERO debt as the voting class. Some of that has been discussed here.

But what do you think you'd get if only those with nothing could vote?

Then, add this wrinkle: those in power deliberately gut the nation to buy the votes of those people, as they meet Tytler's and de Tocqueville's expectation?

"The Free Shit Army doesn't get to vote for more free shit. "

So the churches and the military hardware manufacturers and all the tax-coddled industrialists lose their votes?

Excellent.

Sounds like I need to reread Starship Troopers. The old gray matter is getting mushy.

Ben, the book opens in the middle of the war, then segues to the opening attack.

That may be what's throwing you.

Well, this is obvious.
If you vote, that means you're interested. If you're interested, that means you seek information about the issues.

If you are not interested, you don't vote. If you are not interested you don't seek information about the issues.

People who want to increase the number of voters, actually want to increase the number of uninformed voters, because those are the nonvoters. And it should be obvious that increasing the number of uninformed voters is not a great idea.

Could be Conan. Could be. It has been roughly 20 years. My recollection was that while the rock on Buenos Aires(?) started the 'official' war there were inferred conflicts and skirmishes before. That in reality the use of mass drivers on Earth demonstrated the existential nature of the threat and really ramped up the patriotism.

But as I said, 20 years ago. And in the end it is just a fictional story. No more valid than cannibalistic martians ruled over by their dead relatives. If you want a real life alternative you can look at modern Israel. For the other side you have the military governments in Turkey and Egypt among others. Given the rarity of democracies that put great power into the military staying democracies I would take Heinlein's claims with a grain of salt.

Similarly I don't know that restricting the vote to property owners (does a mortgage disqualify you or only apartments?) or from welfare recipients (as Gog points out tax breaks too or only direct payments?) would curtails the free shit army. Look at third world nations. The minority wealthy have every incentive to keep the free shit coming to pacify the poor while they rob everything they can get their hands on.

For state governments balanced budget amendments and standard accounting practice amendments seem to be effective. Also, limiting how often the legislature meets seems to help. Give them less time to spend other people's money.