Should Individual Votes Be Weighted ?

[Conrod]

If you have shares in a company, your ability to influence that company’s policy is based on the percentage of shares you own – the penny share holder quite rightly cannot have as much sway as the man who owns a quarter of the company – but – a lot of penny share owners can have a big say between them. People who own no shares, and have put nothing into the company, get no vote. That seems eminently fair to me.

 

So why do we allow people to vote in our political system if they have put nothing into the system?

Should people who have not done an hour’s work or paid a penny of tax in their lives have any right to decide how other people’s taxes are paid? I certainly think not.

 

But where do we draw the line – can we have a sort of ‘proportional representation’ on individual level, based on tax contributions? At each election, should an individual’s income tax contribution over the last 4 years be used to give them a weighted vote in elections?

It only seems fair that those who put money into the economy should have a greater right to decide how it is spent than those who give little or, worse, only take.

[Conrod]

I don't see what you find to object to in the OP, it seems eminently sensible to me. And, above all, fair.

[sccsux]

And, above all, fair.

 

No it's not.

 

You have an option for "It should be weighted to give high tax payers greater voting power than low tax payers."

 

But not one for "It should be weighted to give low tax payers greater voting power than high tax payers."

[BoroB]

Sounds a bit like the election for the Labour leader where the union vote carried more weight than the votes of Labour party members and MP's.

 

We're all born equal so its got to be one person one vote.

 

We may not like the outcome at times but its the fairest voting system.

[Conrod]

No it's not.

 

You have an option for "It should be weighted to give high tax payers greater voting power than low tax payers."

 

But not one for "It should be weighted to give low tax payers greater voting power than high tax payers."

But there's no possible logic to rewarding people with greater influence on how the treasury's coffers are spent if they contribute less into it.

[Mecky]

One person, one vote, regardless of earnings/tax

[BoroB]

One person, one vote, regardless of earnings/tax

 

But make it compulsory to vote - have a new bank holiday that people who vote get off.

 

For people who are on benefits they receive their money for the bank holiday, those that don't lose it.

[sccsux]

But there's no possible logic to rewarding people with greater influence on how the treasury's coffers are spent if they contribute less into it.

 

Because that's how democracy works?

[mart]

Should people who have not done an hour’s work or paid a penny of tax in their lives have any right to decide how other people’s taxes are paid? I certainly think not.

 

It only seems fair that those who put money into the economy should have a greater right to decide how it is spent than those who give little or, worse, only take.

 

But there's no possible logic to rewarding people with greater influence on how the treasury's coffers are spent if they contribute less into it.

 

In deciding who you feel should be allowed to vote, it appears that you are placing emphasis on just the economic decisions that an elected party may make. What about all other aspects of the party manifesto?

[Conrod]

Because that's how democracy works?

Does it really? Are you saying that democracy gives greater vote power to those who don't contribute to society?