javajaws said:

---

I'm on the opposite end of what you propose. Restrict voting to those who have earned it.

---

This.

It already is. We just have a country of idiots that can't see it.

Voting is a privilege. It isn't a right. If voting is a burden or you need some incentive to vote, then you really shouldn't be allowed to exercise the privilege.

Elections are a way of hiring people to represent you in the various levels of government. Voters should be looking at resumes to determine what candidates will best represent them in the government. Hiring idiots that blindly follow the will of their party leaders rather than the needs of their constituents is just plain ignorant. Even more stupid is seeing elections as an athletic event where you are blindly rooting for team blue or team red.

slaughtr said:

---

AGC said:

---

Yes. Voting should be limited to those who pay income taxes. That's enough incentive, right?

---

I hear this idea a lot and have no idea how you would do it. Does everyone bring in their tax returns each election cycle or would there be a new Department of Election eligibility that would keep track of every American. Does your vote count less if you are from a state that is a net recipient of tax dollars? If you retire and convert everything to Roth accounts you can't vote the rest of your life?

---

You would likely manage this more locally at either the state or county level using existing voter rolls with a new attribute. I'm obviously simplifying this, but it can be solved.

I alluded to your last question in my post - you would have some kind of lifetime qualifier that accumulated while you were a net taxpayer. Using made up numbers, if you paid in $100K over course of your tax paying life then that qualifies you to continue voting later in life once you retire and/or stop working. This number would need to be normalized across income brackets.

Voting should be restricted not encouraged

YouBet said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

AGC said:

---

Yes. Voting should be limited to those who pay income taxes. That's enough incentive, right?

---

I hear this idea a lot and have no idea how you would do it. Does everyone bring in their tax returns each election cycle or would there be a new Department of Election eligibility that would keep track of every American. Does your vote count less if you are from a state that is a net recipient of tax dollars? If you retire and convert everything to Roth accounts you can't vote the rest of your life?

---

You would likely manage this more locally at either the state or county level using existing voter rolls with a new attribute. I'm obviously simplifying this, but it can be solved.

I alluded to your last question in my post - you would have some kind of lifetime qualifier that accumulated while you were a net taxpayer. Using made up numbers, if you paid in $100K over course of your tax paying life then that qualifies you to continue voting later in life once you retire and/or stop working. This number would need to be normalized across income brackets.

---

I've paid millions in Federal taxes during my lifetime, so as much as I can sympathize, I don't want another government agency having oversight over who can vote based on taxes paid.

AGC said:

---

Yes. Voting should be limited to those who pay income taxes. That's enough incentive, right?

---

This.

And I'll go further - those that actually have a net payment to the government, not those that "pay" in $5000 but get back $10,000 because they qualify for 347 different programs.

I also have zero issue with one having to take a basic civics exam and have a passing grade prior to being eligible to vote as well. Oh, that exam should be administered in one language only - English, since it is the language of business and government by default.

slaughtr said:

---

YouBet said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

AGC said:

---

Yes. Voting should be limited to those who pay income taxes. That's enough incentive, right?

---

I hear this idea a lot and have no idea how you would do it. Does everyone bring in their tax returns each election cycle or would there be a new Department of Election eligibility that would keep track of every American. Does your vote count less if you are from a state that is a net recipient of tax dollars? If you retire and convert everything to Roth accounts you can't vote the rest of your life?

---

You would likely manage this more locally at either the state or county level using existing voter rolls with a new attribute. I'm obviously simplifying this, but it can be solved.

I alluded to your last question in my post - you would have some kind of lifetime qualifier that accumulated while you were a net taxpayer. Using made up numbers, if you paid in $100K over course of your tax paying life then that qualifies you to continue voting later in life once you retire and/or stop working. This number would need to be normalized across income brackets.

---

I've paid millions in Federal taxes during my lifetime, so as much as I can sympathize, I don't want another government agency having oversight over who can vote.

---

You sound rich which means you aren't paying your fair share.

Since we already have existing agencies that maintain voter rolls based on other eligibility requirements you are just adding another attribute to an existing function.

I acknowledge the almost laughable assumption that these existing voter rolls are adequately managed as is.

I think a more useful framework is that voting is an office.

It is participation as a citizen in the republic, willingly both ruling and being ruled.

Offices come with privileges and duties.

YouBet said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

YouBet said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

AGC said:

---

Yes. Voting should be limited to those who pay income taxes. That's enough incentive, right?

---

I hear this idea a lot and have no idea how you would do it. Does everyone bring in their tax returns each election cycle or would there be a new Department of Election eligibility that would keep track of every American. Does your vote count less if you are from a state that is a net recipient of tax dollars? If you retire and convert everything to Roth accounts you can't vote the rest of your life?

---

You would likely manage this more locally at either the state or county level using existing voter rolls with a new attribute. I'm obviously simplifying this, but it can be solved.

I alluded to your last question in my post - you would have some kind of lifetime qualifier that accumulated while you were a net taxpayer. Using made up numbers, if you paid in $100K over course of your tax paying life then that qualifies you to continue voting later in life once you retire and/or stop working. This number would need to be normalized across income brackets.

---

I've paid millions in Federal taxes during my lifetime, so as much as I can sympathize, I don't want another government agency having oversight over who can vote.

---

You sound rich which means you aren't paying your fair share.

Since we already have existing agencies that maintain voter rolls based on other eligibility requirements you are just adding another attribute to an existing function.

I acknowledge the almost laughable assumption that these existing voter rolls are adequately managed as is.

---

I guarantee it would get abused. Suddenly people in every conservative "net recipient" state will lose the right to vote when AOC becomes President.

Voter ID in person limited to:
Citizen
Net tax payer
Real property owner
Pass basic civics exam
Non-felon
Not under doctor' care- mental health
English proficiency

Would solve a lot of problems

those opposed to early voting will lose a lot of us old timers.
shorter the line the more accommodating.

Voting should be difficult, not easy. It would weed out the uninformed morons. Motor voter, prevalent use of mail in voting, and in the future online voting are scourges to a democratic process where people should have to show up, wait in line, and actually make an effort to vote.

Ballots should be printed only with verified identification, and ideally only real property owners should be able to vote.

Free newports to all voters

Grand Idea! - If you think more of our problems would be solved and our rights better protected with more low information voters.

javajaws said:

---

I'm on the opposite end of what you propose. Restrict voting to those who have earned it.

---

Voting needs to be severely restricted.

Only if it's for Republicans.

texagbeliever said:

---

Pemise: Political rhetoric and engagement is largely based around drumming up GOTV efforts. This leads to increasing efforts by both parties to generate fear and anger to motivate people to vote. This creates a political environment that divides people and also allows for emotional manipulation that bonds people out of trama.

By incentivizing voting through economic means political rhetoric will no longer be focused on getting people to get to the polls but on getting people to actually pull the lever. The idea being that the optimization will no longer be fear / anger based.

For the sake of discussion assume the economic incentive is either $500 or a reduction in taxable income by $5k. Also assume someone doesnt need to vote for any candidate they just need to go and vote. This would also enforce that voting is tied to a SSN and be a form of proof. So voter fraud would be harder.

---

Democrats are already doing this in California, with drug addicts, for much less.

SunrayAg said:

---

Anyone who doesn't pay taxes should be ineligible.

---

Anyone receiving government "entitlements" should also be ineligible.

No, voting participation should not be incentivized because half of the country will vote for DSA candidates, who want to destroy the country.