pull down to refresh

I think this is reasonable. What would it look like? How you weight each assuming the max is 1 vote and the min is no vote?
this territory is moderated
I was thinking of it as getting an additional vote for any number of pro-social activities. A married person with kids who owns their own home and is employed would get an extra vote for each of those things.
Assuming I can count properly, that would be 4 extra votes. So, their vote would count for 5x the baseline vote every American would have.
reply
So you want to give votes not take them away. I thought you meant some kind of demerit system. Say, a married with kids, employed, homeowner over the age of 25 gets a whole vote. Then you deduct in increments from there say 1/10 of a vote for every demerit. So if I am a single, no kids, unemployed, renter, living off the welfare I get 0.5 votes.
reply
I like demerits too, but for antisocial things like currently serving a criminal sentence or being in bankruptcy or other types of default.
reply
I have a friend that thinks you shouldn't be able to vote unless you pay income taxes. I don't know if I would go that far but I understand the sentiment.
reply
I would flip it around and say you don't get to vote if you're a net tax recipient. The incentives are too perverse to keep voting for more of other people's money.
reply
reply
I like your friend
He must live in Texas or Alberta
reply
No he lives in Ontario like me. He just recognizes the incentive structure of politics is completely broken and that fools will always vote themselves more “free” stuff and inevitably pay for it later.
reply