Be Excellent To Each Other

[Vimes] had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away.

The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.

I've long believed that longer parliamentary terms (say 7 years) give more value to the individual vote by reducing the impact of election year short-term politics. I've not reconsidered my position on that for a while though.

Even I don't think that taking votes off the 'scroungers' would be a good thing in any way,

but a more sensible system that could be developed over time with less emotional swings due to upcoming elections could lead to elections being more relevant and participatory.

I'm awarding me half a mark for answering a different question, but well.

Not mine, but this was an interesting* post Elsewhere:

"Why does everyone over 18 have the same, single vote?

In a game (as politics has become) where the number of single votes needs to be maximised to win power, is there not an obvious moral hazard to giving the mass recipients of tax payer-funded welfare the same weighting as those who don't benefit from state-funded handouts?

Surely the whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to vote.

Directors of Banks? They still owe each of us money,

Surely the whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to vote. Whether you're a net contributor or detractor, a cunt or a saint, stupid or clever. Otherwise you'd end up with the clever and wealthy voting for their own interests all the time.

I don't agree with removing the vote for inmates, either..

The only real reason not to allow someone to vote would be if they are unable to show the slightest understanding of what it is they're doing

No, not at all. Why would you think that?

There must be a way to strip the power from the net beneficiary benefits class.

Today's idea is totally impractical. Let's get that out the way.

The idea is to change the tax code in the U.S. so that the so-called rich are the only taxpayers funding social services, while the taxes collected from the middle class go exclusively toward defense and the other nuts and bolts of running the government. For this discussion, imagine that these tax pools never mingle. (That's just one of the many impractical parts.)

I think we can make the math work by jiggering with the level at which "rich" is defined. On day one of this new plan, the government gets the same amount of tax revenue as it would from the old system. The interesting part comes in future years.

Once you give the rich the full burden of social services for the poor, the rich have a deeper interest in solving those problems to put a lid on their own future taxes. In twenty years, if the rich have figured out a clever way to reduce poverty, their taxes would drop.

In our current system, reducing poverty doesn't help the rich in a direct way. For the most part, the rich don't even know any poor people. And with today's system, if half of the poor suddenly got good jobs tomorrow, the taxes paid by the rich would just be diverted to some other black hole. Our current system gives the rich no financial incentive to go after the root causes of poverty. The rich are primarily incented to lobby their own government to cut services for the poor. That's a perverse incentive.

In this new imagined system, the middle class would be responsible for funding the basic operation of the government. They too would have a new financial incentive to make government smaller and more efficient. If successful, they wouldn't need to worry that their tax dollars would simply transfer to the poor, since the rich are funding that group. If the middle class finds a way to reduce military spending, they get to keep that gain in the form of lower taxes.

I'm thinking along these lines because we need a radically different approach to funding the future. I doubt we can ever raise taxes enough to pay for a world that is rapidly filling up with old people who have no savings, while the climate is ravaging the world, and North Korea is selling nuclear-tipped drones to terrorists. Put another way, any version of our current approach leads to certain doom.

But I'm an optimist. I think we can find a way to reduce the cost of living by 60%, at least for the poor and the elderly, while making life more meaningful at the same time. That has to be the solution for a future where there will be only one worker for every five retired people. There's no practical way to tax the workforce of the future enough to keep the world out of a death spiral. You can't get there from here. Society needs to change its...well, just about everything.

And so I imagine that the rich people of the future will pursue their own best interests by designing and funding entire new cities that are relatively protected from global warming, powered by clean energy, absurdly inexpensive for the inhabitants, and optimized for a satisfying and social lifestyle. While these cities (or suburbs) are being constructed, maybe on the oceans or in deserts, many jobs will be created. The new cities will be designed so that even an 80-year old can have a part time job if his mind still works. The cities will be operated for profit, with the main benefit being a lid on what would otherwise be terminal tax rates or a crushing national debt.

As I said, this isn't a practical idea. But it's worth noting that no one has a practical idea for avoiding economic collapse in your lifetime. The triple threat of global warming, an aging population, and spiraling debt pretty much guarantees doom. (It's called math, bitch!) The solution, if one exists, will appear impractical when it is first introduced. Impractical is the antidote to doomed.

How about we dump all this party politics, government/opposition crap, and everyone has a vote for a single person to represent their beliefs.
No party boundaries, no whips, no sides to the house, no majority or minority, just 600 people talking and voting and representing their own beliefs and those of the pople in the community that actually voted for them?

Everybody should have a vote, but it would be nice if the vote actually meant something for most people.

Why should anyone get a vote? Serious question? Why should we, the uneducated, no-knowledged masses, get a vote? Let a benevolent dictator or a king rule us. Just make sure they listen to a well educated, diverse council and act in our best interest.

Of course, in many ways, we have delegated to a dictator. Who I vote for makes no difference, it is whoever Rupert Murdoch informs the proles to vote for that wins the election.

...Dilbert guy stuff...

How about we dump all this party politics, government/opposition crap, and everyone has a vote for a single person to represent their beliefs.
No party boundaries, no whips, no sides to the house, no majority or minority, just 600 people talking and voting and representing their own beliefs and those of the pople in the community that actually voted for them?

Everybody should have a vote, but it would be nice if the vote actually meant something for most people.

That would result the world's most unholy coalition arrnagement, otherwise you'd need some other way of forming the executive branch of government. A president, for instance. And that would mean deposing the Queen.

Plan!

The executive branch would get voted in by all the 600 delegates, not just the party that is "in power".

Doc - very interesting article. Also "incented" - bravo, Mr Adams.


Is that not another reason for taking the vote off the proles, then?

And we're back to the world's most unholy coalition arrangement. That would be beyond unworkable.

You can't even get 5 Beexers to agree on whether Ass Crud 2 is any good.

I'm ambivalent about that. They can't vote while they're in prison - well, that's fair enough, possibly, as they've shown they don't want to be part of society by kicking against it. On the other hand, the only people likely to vote for prisoners' interests are prisoners.

However, we're not as bad as America, where you can lose the vote forever.



How clever do you have to be to end up in prison?

Some deadly wielding of the +3 Brush Of Sweeping Generalisation, there.

I don't think lawyers should be able to vote.

Here's a semi-related question I've sometimes pondered.

In the UK, we vote for a party (basically, via MP), and the leader of the winning party picks other elected MPs to form his or her cabinet of advisors. The cabinet are all elected.

In the US, they vote for a party (basically, via an electoral college), and the leader of the winning party picks anyone he or she wants to form their cabinet of advisors. For example, the current Secretary for Energy is a Nobel-decorarated biophysics professor from Berkely. But this means unelected officials hold huge power.

Which system is preferable?

How does everyone feel this whole 'votes for women' thing is going? Political correctness gone mad?

How does everyone feel this whole 'votes for women' thing is going? Political correctness gone mad?

Great, now I've got mary-fucking-poppins in my head.

Great, now I've got mary-fucking-poppins in my head.

That film causes me great unrest, you know.

Because there's song and dance but not the campness you crave?

Shtep in toime!!!!!!!!

It causes me great unrest in the groinal region, as I properly fancy Julie Andrews

Then, not now, obv.

You got your groinal region removed?

That's next week. And it's only a bit of tubing.