mlb Wrote:

BuckeyeStu Wrote:I would make it so that you have to pay into the Federal income tax to be able to vote. People that don't currently make enough income would be given a choice between their refund check and the privilege of voting. Those without a job/income would lose their voting privilege.

This would keep people that invest nothing into the country from electing the politicians that decide how to spend someone else's money.

So basically you want to go back to where only the rich can vote.

Honestly, the people who don't have jobs don't vote now, taking away their rights doesn't affect that large of a population.

I personally think that is a terrible idea, however, as everyone who is a citizen (and can prove it) should have the right to have their voice heard (through voting).

I do think that welfare should be changed and force these people to do something for the community for their check. They can clean roads, clean parks, paint schools or government building, etc., thus keeping the costs of maintaining these public lands and buildings down. Nobody gets a free ride, if you are down on your luck and you need a government handout you better be ready to do some sort of work.

It would be a lot more than just the rich because I believe anyone making over $20,000 already pays something into the income tax. Those making less then that would simply have a choice between getting everything back on their tax return or their voting privilege. I think this would probably have a larger effect on young people/college students than it would the poor since anyone working full time for a year should be able to gross more than $20,000.

I also believe that everyone has a right have their voice heard, but I think that falls more under freedom of speech and the first amendment but I believe voting is more of a privilege than a right. Voting rights are already limited based on age(18+), citizenship(Americans only), conviction(no felons), and I would also add contribution(must pay income tax). I am no legal scholar, but I believe this would require overturning the 24th amendment.

Also, *newsflash* when someone is doing labor to receive their welfare check then it is no longer welfare, it is a job! So why not cut out the unnecessary government bureaucracy that is the middleman in your plan and just get rid of welfare for anyone who is capable of working.

BuckeyeStu Wrote:

mlb Wrote:

BuckeyeStu Wrote:I would make it so that you have to pay into the Federal income tax to be able to vote. People that don't currently make enough income would be given a choice between their refund check and the privilege of voting. Those without a job/income would lose their voting privilege.

This would keep people that invest nothing into the country from electing the politicians that decide how to spend someone else's money.

So basically you want to go back to where only the rich can vote.

Honestly, the people who don't have jobs don't vote now, taking away their rights doesn't affect that large of a population.

I personally think that is a terrible idea, however, as everyone who is a citizen (and can prove it) should have the right to have their voice heard (through voting).

I do think that welfare should be changed and force these people to do something for the community for their check. They can clean roads, clean parks, paint schools or government building, etc., thus keeping the costs of maintaining these public lands and buildings down. Nobody gets a free ride, if you are down on your luck and you need a government handout you better be ready to do some sort of work.

It would be a lot more than just the rich because I believe anyone making over $20,000 already pays something into the income tax. Those making less then that would simply have a choice between getting everything back on their tax return or their voting privilege. I think this would probably have a larger effect on young people/college students than it would the poor since anyone working full time for a year should be able to gross more than $20,000.

I also believe that everyone has a right have their voice heard, but I think that falls more under freedom of speech and the first amendment but I believe voting is more of a privilege than a right. Voting rights are already limited based on age(18+), citizenship(Americans only), conviction(no felons), and I would also add contribution(must pay income tax). I am no legal scholar, but I believe this would require overturning the 24th amendment.

Also, *newsflash* when someone is doing labor to receive their welfare check then it is no longer welfare, it is a job! So why not cut out the unnecessary government bureaucracy that is the middleman in your plan and just get rid of welfare for anyone who is capable of working.

I like your logical explanations of your position...and I totally agree with the putting an end to a welfare state that puts both freeriders and deserving poor in the same system....One size fits all is an unfortunate consequence of govt. dogoodery.

I'd go for

1. 6-year term for Pres/VP, Pres cannot succeed himself but could come back after 6 years off; that way he'd have an incentive to do a good job all the way, but not spend half his time running for re-election
2. 8-year terms for Senator, no limit; spreading the elections out further will reduce the need for re-election funding
3. House elected like in parliamentary systems, 4 year max term with prospect of calling elections at shorter intervals at any time; also proportional representation, so some third parties could win a seat here and there; if House had to organize the way parliamentary coalitions do, would force more viewpoints to get consideration; one advantage of parliamentary systems IMO is that with irregular election cycles, raising money becomes more problematical and that in itself would get some of the money out of the equation

In another move toward a semi-parliamentary system, I'd like to see the cabinet composed of sitting senators. If we have a republican president, then ranking republican on senate foreign relations committee would become secretary of state, for example, or ranking democrat if democrat president. This would give voters a better idea what they are voting for, and also put at least a little bit of electoral accountability on executive departments.

I would keep the electoral college, but have electors appointed based on two (the "senate electors") per state to winner of state, with rest (the "house electors") based on proportional representation. This puts emphasis on winning both popular vote and majority of states. If nobody gets a majority in electoral college, have it decided by incoming congress, with each senator and each representative getting one vote. This approach would have resulted in a Bush win in 2000, BTW, but I believe that James Baker's maneuvering meant that was a foregone conclusion constitutionally anyway. There is supposed to be a move coming out about Baker's role, I wonder if it will reach the same conclusion that I have on that issue.