add: Owns property AND is a NET taxpayer.

Jason,

You've just taken the vote away from public servants such as military people, police and firefighters--since these folks are paid through your taxes--nence not "net" taxpayers.

~~favill~~

Jason,

You've just taken the vote away from public servants such as military people, police and firefighters--since these folks are paid through your taxes--hence not "net" taxpayers.

~~favill~~

Blame Obama all you want. And certainly he is an odeous character. But George Jr. was set to spend every bit as much. America and the entire wertern world is irrevocably on the road to complete anniliation - through immigration, through feminism, through socialism and through an inexplicable innate, inherent need to self destruct. Maybe the end will arrive quicker due to Obama, but is was coming anyway. And Bush did very little to stop it aside from whipping a few terrorist asse. Saudi financed Mosques are popping up everywhere, mexicans are taking over the southern US, 1 million Americans are aborted every year, Green whack jobs are destroyiung the economy. And it wan't Obama who created thsi America. he's just exploiting the nutrient rich soil that Bush left behind.

Thanks, Jason, you've just taken the vote away from stay-at-home parents and homemakers. Just because some of us have no income doesn't mean we should be ineligible to vote.

Favill,

I wouldn't count earned pay as part of taxes. Even though your pay is covered in dollars paid for by tax money, you aren't being given the money, you are earning in a job. It isn't part of the give/take in government benefits vs taxes. Gov't employees have to pay taxes on their earnings like everyone else.

Although I'd like to exclude some government employees...

I'm talking take the value of government services received minus taxes paid. If you haven't paid for at least the services you have been provided, you shouldn't get to vote yourself other people's money.

Western free world post 1960's = Ignorance by self rule. The caring ants are slowly vanishing, being replaced by nonchalant grasshoppers.

Obama and ACORN pulled a Hugo Chavez on the US. Use the now majority "grasshoppers" and hold on to power forever.

Kathryn

If you took down 10 deadbeats, would it not be worth it to give up your 1 vote?

Regardless, government is about spending tax dollars. If you don't pay taxes, what's your reason to think you should have a say in how the money you don't contribute to is spent?

"Blame Obama all you want. And certainly he is an odeous character. But George Jr. was set to spend every bit as much"

Say what ????

Obamassiah will run a deficit this of $1.85 Trillion. Bush's last year in office was about $400 Billion.

Obamah is, arithmetically, almost 5 times "worse" than Bush.

As for the argument that the end is nigh and obama is merely speeding up the process, I'd like to say that maybe it isn't a bad thing.

After all, if it happened later, the boomers who caused the bloody mess to begin with would die before they had a chance to suffer the consequences.

Having it all happen now is entirely appropriate.

Jason, re: the deadbeats - not only no but hell no.

As for gov't spending, all of them, no matter what flavour is in power, spend too much. As one of the regulars here points out, what is needed is a massive tax cut; 50% would be a good start.

Still have a problem with me voting?

Kathryn,

But somebody in that family should be earning a living...(male or female). You're telling me the non-earning spouse can't discuss who the household should vote for, or which candidate would better meet the needs of the family? Imagine, informed discussion and debate about politics in the family...which, hopefully, the children would be present and get to see:

1) the only way to have the vote is to have full-time employment (a contributor to society vice a beneficiary); and

2) issues are what should drive one's decision for whom to vote (not popularity or looks).

When politicians realize that their platform (or lack thereof) is going to be put under microscope at the "micro" level (ie. at the family dinner table vice the cheerleading MSM)...they might actually have policies that benefit the tax-payer (and their family) vice the beneficiary (welfare recipients and criminals) of the tax-payer's largesse.

Do you really think the NDP would survive without the welfare vote? My first question to any aspiring MP would be how much of my money do I need to send to Ottawa under their regime? The next would be a demand for them to prove it. Finally, we should also have the power to recall our MP if they lied to us to get into power--say 51% of eligible voters in his/her constituency--this would be easy by using the tax forms sent in every year.

~~favill~~

Kathryn,

I didn't say I had a problem with you voting. I'd say you'd be more like collateral damage.

You'd get your tax cut a hell of a lot faster if those who leech off government handouts and spending didn't get to vote - even if it cost you your vote.

Hell, I'd give up MY vote if I could take down 10 deadbeats. It would be like gaining 9 votes instead of losing 1.

The Obamanation will debauch the currency and impoverish the middle class but they will also finally inoculate and polarize all those who foolishly voted for them as an act of trendy ignorance, guilt reparation, and indoctrinated self-abasement. Countries recover quickly when angry voters vote for real leaders who take charge and make things happen. Thatcher was such a leader, no thanks to her own Conservative party establishment. If the Republicans dare to clear away all their useless deadwood, roll up their sleeves, look hard at any potential Republican leader to find the best one, and even harder at their Democratic opponent to defeat him, they can hold power for generations to come.

Since "progressive taxation" is so "fair", how about "progressive voting"?

Everybody 1 vote

If you finished high school 1 vote

If you finished university 1 vote

In science, engineering or education 1 vote

For every $50,000 in annual taxable income 1 vote

For every $250,000 in net worth 1 vote

OK, so it probably needs work, but it illustrates my point: We've trained ourselves to believe that everyone is equal. The fact of the matter is that while people are born nominally equal, they don't stay that way. We need to recognize that, and once the notion of personal responsibility took root, perhaps there would be greater incentive for self improvement.

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." Disraeli

kakola

How about "none of the above" on every ballot. If it wins, a new election is held and every name of the first ballot is banned from running in the next.

In short order it would get rid of the loser incumbents who have been there too long and dramatically increase the quality of leader.

Sgt. Lejaune,

Sorry to rain on your parade but what you are wishing for will only happen during the beginning of a revolution, a time marked by great suffering and famine.

Right now, no democratic politician (Left or Right, Libertarian or otherwise) will be elected by preaching true sacrifice. Sacrifice will come to us when the elastic can no longer stretch and snaps.

We are witnessing the last elongation before the snap.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act".
George Orwell

There is no requirement for a healthy democracy that everyone vote. Busing mobs of the totally clueless to polling places by the Dems' ACORN minions is part of why we are in the mess we are in.

I read recently that only one out of five college grads is finding employment, what wasn't factored into the article was that those hired were probably the minority that have useful degrees. Our little dumbed down Obama campus groupies are getting a lesson in economics, a course most of them most likely ignored for something easier.

By 2012 Obama fully owns this nightmare, uttering George Bush as the culprit won't cut it by then.

I expect college admissions to be depressed in the years ahead which is a good thing. Most of the frivolous degrees will be gone taking the herd that can't get hired with them. "Hope and Change" will be a mockery of itself by 2012 so I'm guessing the little frivolous brats won't be flocking to the polls next time.

Posted by: ron in kelowna at May 22, 2009 11:51 AM

nice quote...

I'm talking take the value of government services...Posted by: Jason at May 22, 2009 10:43 AM

There is no value in 'government services'. The amount paid to persons performing it is a proxy for the value the private sector would put on it.

Government (by force of law) has interceded in the economy and built budgets and empires based upon the flimsy notion that some services should not be provided outside of their purview.

Government will eternally seek to expand budgets and empires. Once the bureaucracy has been built, it needs to be fed.

hardboiled

sigh. substitute "notational amount" for value.

you should get the jist of the idea though...

Bah. I say no votes unless you've given a minimum of two years hazardous Federal Service. If you want to decide the future of the country, you should be prepared to die for it first.

/Why yes, I do always get the shakes before a drop. Why do you ask?

daniel ream said:"Bah. I say no votes unless you've given a minimum of two years hazardous Federal Service. If you want to decide the future of the country, you should be prepared to die for it first."

In earlier topics I made the comment the only people who should be able to vote are those who have a full time job or own property (on which they pay taxes). For those who wish to run for any office in the country...they should have served in its military (like the classical Greek democracy)--in other words people who have been willing to risk their all in the service of their country have shown where their loyalty lies. That would definitely make the pool of possible candidates for all levels of gov't a very small demographic.

~~favill~~

favill @12:52 - I sort of like, but that gets us back to asking whether gals can serve in the front lines... or are you thinking of preventing Kathryn from holding public office too?

daniel ream @12:38 - Best. Rush. Evah. (er, 2nd best.)

How about a written exam before you can cast your ballot. I remember watching people at an advance poll being asked a number of questions about each candidate and their VP choices, it included policies, gaffes and personal life (such as name all the candidates and their vps, which candidate said "I've been to 57 states, only have 2 more to go" etc). If people get less than 70% on the exam, they are not allowed to cast a ballot.
It ensures that every person who goes to the polls is informed, and not only will weed out the "hope and change" votes, but all the "made up my mind, dont confuse me with fact" votes.

That way those of us who are working towards becoming landowners are not excluded, intelligent youth are not excluded, and homemakers and so on are also not excluded, cause I'm with Kathryn, I'm not giving up MY vote just so 10 morons cant vote. I refuse to be grouped in with those 10 morons.

Irene Swain - of course the pre-Civil Rights Era behaviour of officials south of the Mason-Dixon gave that sort of thing a bad name. In fact I suspect the National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (good ol' Wikipedia!) would need to be repealed before such a plan could be enacted in the States. There is a built-in potential for abuse, like framing questions to weed out ideological opponents. I still like the idea.

Jason Mamba and Kat

"I sort of like, but that gets us back to asking whether gals can serve in the front lines... or are you thinking of preventing Kathryn from holding public office too?"

I'm going to really generalize here.
"Oops I did it again"B.Spears

It's been my observation that women excel in many managerial and commission/competative type atmospheres. That being said I've also observed that women are incapable of thinking straight when an attractive or powerful man is in proximity. I have also observed that typical voting patterns from women tend to be socialist and have been the major strength of the thrust of socialism and all of its perks in Canada and the US.

Why is this?

I've heard people say women are more protective, they want more security, but I'm not so sure. I also don't believe it is a brains issue. I think it might have to do with ignorance. What I mean is, because women are relatively new to the work force(non-traditional jobs that is) I think it’s fair to say a large percentage of voting women haven’t had the experience or background to truly understand fiscal concepts, more so than men anyway. Working in the home, teaching English or nursing probably didn't give many women the background necessary to make reasonable decisions on economic policy. A good analogy is the discrepancy between men and women with respect to how they negotiate wages with their employers, or lack of negotiating by women. The point is the education is different; therefore, the results are different. As women progress in non-traditional industries this disparity should shrink. Add the "Woman's Rights" movement and all of the additional politics and propaganda involved and you end up with a ill informed voting block that wields a massive stick. Oh, and I forgot the “hot powerful dude” thing.

I said one time “perhaps women shouldn’t vote”, but I can assure you it was in jest; but, given the strengths and weaknesses(generalizations) that I’ve outlined I think it is at least fair discussion. Regarding Mamba’s question: absolutely not. As I said, in my experience women in those types of roles excel, perhaps more so than men, so I have no problem voting for, or being led by a woman.

Ask yourselves this: Would we be better off economically and socially if women had not voted for the last 80 years?

Indy: Your closing answer re. my question keeps you off my crayoned list of names - for now. But "women are incapable of thinking straight when an attractive or powerful man is in proximity"?!?! Homey, please. You're projecting.

The answer to your last question is yes.

Black Mamba,

I don't know what country you're in but my country has buried two women who died as combat arms (artillery and armoured) soldiers in the line of fire. So, any woman who has served in my military can run for office (that's the Canadian military, by the way). And I didn't make the distiction between combat arms or non-combat arms or navy or air force...I said anybody who served in the military--because it denotes a sacrifice to one's country.

I would suggest to you that staying at home and taking care of one's children is a choice (by the way, I was the one who stayed at home with my two boys when they were born -- until they were 18 mths old--while my wife was finishing law school and pursuing her law career)-- however, once you get back in the work force and get full time employment OR go into business while you're at home raising your kids you would have the right vote. The idea here

Another note, the lady who began the extremely successful "Baby Einstein" videos started her business while she was at home raising her daughter.

~~favill~~

favill: I'm in Canada too. On April 21st there was a long thread on this blog about a response to a column Michael Coren wrote for the Toronto Sun in which he called Trooper Karine Blais, killed in Afghanistan, a "young girl dressed up as a soldier". That's what I was referring to. It was daniel ream who said "if you want to decide the future of the country, you should be prepared to die for it first" @12:38. You seemed to endorse his viewpoint, and generally speaking it's front-line troops who risk their lives.

Mamba

Thanks for cutting me some slack, lets be honest though. I seem to recall not too long ago woman after woman swooning over at particular individual and shamelessly divulging the fact this was a major consideration in their vote. I suspect the same was the case with Bill, but I can't say. A major criteria for many women I've known for picking movies and TV programs is also "hot dudes", guys not so much. "Hot chicks" contribute very little to movies that guys like.

I know I'm projecting, but I expect strong women to be able to take a shot in the chops in jest. My daughters sure can, and they can dish it out as well.

In fairness, Indy, a lot of male reporters ("reporters"?) seem to have had a similar crush on the Big O. And hey, I'm agreeing with you; women tend to vote stupid.
I do insist, though, that when it comes to thinking with the libido... well now you brought up Bill yourself.
I suspect the fact the women tend to vote for socialists is down to the sedating effects of estrogen (no, really). Women are on average simply not very competitive or enterprising (you're right, of course, that education and upbringing bears on this). They want the state to tuck them in at night. This same instinct can make them tend to favour social conservatism; after all, change is scary. But few women are natural Libertarians.
Obligatory Disclaimer: I'm generalizing. Generalizing!

being able to read and write in a coherent manner should be necessary to vote. how the hell can you tell shit from shinola if you can't read, oh, wait it's the smell.

As a 24 year old female who recently purchased a piece of property (assuming a condo counts) I agree!

Guess we can make these comments on women and their voting patterns because ET doesn't seem to be around. Truly one of the sharpest posters that I have ever read as well as our esteemed host, Kate.

In my experience women do not seem to be interested in politics and make stunning comments like "I don't like Harper's eyes." yet rarely are as viscious and cruel as men can be. Men seem to be able to deal with someone with a terrible character while women have difficulty getting around the person's character faults and just focusing on their ability and contribution to the task.

As time moves on I hope we see more women in politics and business as I believe they are the real drivers of our civilization and hold it together.

Somehow we have to get more people of both genders involved in voting as our poor turnout gives so much power to special interest groups such as Miller's unions in Toronto.

IMHO.

I can refute all comments about women so far with 2 words. Sarah Palin.

You have to remember that DerLiberal were intent on lowering the voting age to 16, not too long ago. BO'B may allow the terrorist vote and petrocks. But who cares unless you get off your ass and do it.

Do you really think the NDP would survive without the welfare vote?

I think the Sask Party and the Conservatives
pretty much have a lock on the welfare vote.
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Budget+pleases+farmers+ranchers/1404127/story.html

Jason - re "none of the above" - I like it, especially having just been subjected to the BC Provincial Election.

No representation without taxation.

Indy, while I do not disagree that many women are swooners, many men are no different. I read the comments re: iRuby from men... tell me, most men don't vote for her cos she's ?attractive? and has a great pair.. certainly that's what they say when discussing her. I don't think shallowness and ignorance is based on gender... the majority of people seem to think voting for a leader is a popularity contest ie: who would you rather go for a beer with? I'm interested in electing LEADERS, not who I want at my next bbq.

yup, earned right to vote

and the standard we should use for this is ,ME!!!!

If American kids are "stupid", it's because of the schools (and the culture, but both follow from the prevailing philosophy, which is irrational -- and this includes religion, meaning all of them). We don't need to raise the voting age or add conditions, but we do need to abolish public education (i.e. indoctrination) and let people look after their own learning.

Re: "I say no votes unless you've given a minimum of two years hazardous Federal Service. If you want to decide the future of the country, you should be prepared to die for it first."

How will this help? Military men and the like have shown no greater ability in running government or avoiding the usual political shenanigans than anybody else.

Re: "Right now, no democratic politician (Left or Right, Libertarian or otherwise) will be elected by preaching true sacrifice. Sacrifice will come to us when the elastic can no longer stretch and snaps."

The problem is we've made too many sacrifices. The economic meltdown, for example, has knocked millions out of work and has cut the incomes of many others. Economic problems can be avoided with a free market (which by now, regrettably, we are nowhere near), but no one is willing to call for a stop to the "redistribution of wealth", which punishes the productive, tends to encourage the recipients to get lazy (although I have enough respect for my fellow man to think most are far from the stereotype of completely irresponsible) and creates a layer of what are essentially parasites in government who administer the programs. Add to that the complexity of the tax system (which requires more non-productive bureaucrats to administer), regulators (ditto) and so on, and you can see where, had none of this deadweight been added over the past 40 years, average incomes might be two or three times what they are now.

Reality is not infinitely elastic. When you hear people asking you to sacrifice, run in the other direction. They are evil and dangerous.

One of my "oldest" and most enduring blogging friends, formerly known as "Young Conservative", a young university student, with a totally-new blog (mosey on over for a visit, link provided below; she's totally worthy of our attention as she learns and advances), disses fellow conservative Captain Capitalism:

Commentary from a member of the ‘Stupid Youth’

http://rightfromtheprairies.blogspot.com/2009/05/commentary-from-member-of-stupid-youth.html

Fine, but does being young - which I will say is under thirty - necessitates a complete lack of understanding of any and all political happenings? Does being young mean that your only concerns are frivolities? I will admit that there are more than enough of people who fit that description. However, I would gather that many of said people will remain ignorant and unconcerned with politics for the majority of their lives. Some, not all. Some youngins' just need life experience, but many will follow the general American and Canadian tradition of being misinformed and uninterested in politics goings-on.

Of course, lots of folks who own property will vote for the Far Left, so, really, age and property ownership are irrelevant, though they can play a tiny part, in terms of perspective.

In other words, one is responsible for one's own mind, and for whether they will use it... or not. Understanding of the world around oneself is a choice. It doesn't matter what information and observations one has made; what matters is whether one makes the continuous effort to cerebrally process, via a virtual relational database, this data... or not.

Property ownership or full time employment -- excludes retirees who rent? Renters pay property taxes too, just not under their own name. Does not exclude spouse if property is in both names.

Full time employment -- as of when? the day of the election? over what time period -- a week before the election, 5 years continuous prior to the election, at least 1 year in the past 5 years?

Is there a case to be made for those who leave the workforce to further their education or to care for elderly parents or children or disabled others.

Does volunteer work count? Is money earned the only validation of one's contribution to society?

Reading comprehension tests -- I know a carpenter, considered quite successful by most everyone, whose literacy is about that of a 12 year old -- never diagnosed as having a learning disability -- should he be denied a vote? he certainly contributes to society and has very strong, interesting, and well thought out political views.

I also have a problem with the 'IDOL' voting patterns, but am not sure there is a simple solution, nor that it would provide us with better society(ies). Tyranny comes in many guises.

Kakola A multi voting system as you proposed was suggested in a novel by Nevil Shute "In the wet".
I suggest that everyone read this book, it's very entertaining. Your local library should have it. Then when you discover you like Shute's books, there are lots more of them to read.

This simple adjustment of voting rights would do a lot of good:
- min age for voting to be raised to e.g. 35
- max age for voting to be introduced (e.g. 75)

Couple this with some more tax fairness (such as a flat tax), some more freedom (free trade, health care, unions, wheat board, CRTC, HRC, etc) and we could be quite ok.

I am retired, and thanks to a bitter divorce, I
am now a renter. Didn't realize I had become
a nobody also.

how about anyone who doesn't earn over $1 million dollars per year is not allowed to vote. And having a degree is nothing, you should also have a masters or doctorate to have the priviledge.