[snapplebobapple]

i am sympathetic to desire to change how elections are handled (universal suffrage is a stupid idea without universal risk/ skin in the game, we need a way to make voters universally and roughly equal uncomfortable eith poor fiscal managment so they feel the pian when they vote thwmselves more stuff without also voting in a payment method) but its not happening.

i also think you are mistaking long term corruption and chaos with a normal process in big party system where every several decades the big voting blocks move around and thatparalyzes the politicians until they are sure who their voting blocks are. onve the voting blocks finishmigrating and sort out dominance per party things will go back more towards historical functioninglevels

[FactKnower69]

>we need a way to make voters universally and roughly equal uncomfortable eith poor fiscal managment so they feel the pian when they vote thwmselves more stuff without also voting in a payment method

another small govt ideologue that thinks the US's federal budget works like a household's

[goostavos]

>make voters universally and roughly equal uncomfortable eith poor fiscal managment so they feel the pian when they vote thwmselves more stuff without also voting in a payment method)

What does that look like in your mind?

[rustcleaner]

My idea is to apportion costs to the voter's choices (you want lobster, you pay for lobster), and/or hamstring the ability to move and immediately get access to voting in the new place's elections.

[snapplebobapple]

you can read in my other response but the short answer is: post a bond equal to X weeks salary to vote, bond is held for duration of those elected people's time and if they run a deficit the first hit comes off the posted bond before the country starts taking on debt. If you want to vote again next time post more money to top yourself up.

[DowsingSpoon]

>universal suffrage is a stupid idea without universal risk/ skin in the game

Can you clarify this statement? I don’t understand what you mean.

[snapplebobapple]

Right now almost everyone gets to vote ( basically if you are a citizen who is over 18 you get to vote in most democracies) but when you look at how the government actually functions a majority of these voters are strongly net beneficiaries of government (through direct and indirect transfers) and have almost no risk from any of their votes because the strongest argument you can make is their taxes may go up but their transfers will likely still cover it and those transfers may be in forms that are less optimal than whatever they were spending that cash on directly before it was taxed away and then transferred back. Its' a very weak claim to having any skin in the game. Even among the minority of people actually paying for all this and not getting it back as transfers, you can make an argument that a subset of those guys are also largely insulated because they are good at getting excess government subsidy for their businesses via lobbying. Overall, there's a very tiny group of people who are experiencing actual costs from the decisions made by voters, which is stupid. Most of the people making the decisions need to have some real exposure to their decisions. I would personally do it by requiring people put up 2 weeks salary as a bond that pays some nominal interest but is stuck for at least the period that that election is valid for and if the people elected run deficits then the deficit is paid for out of the posted salary first prorated so that everyone experiences the same percentage of the pain and has to post the same percentage again at the next election if they want to vote there. You could also solve this by limiting voting to the people actually paying but that's a really bad idea for abuse reasons. Better to keep the voter rolls as broad as possible and just ensure people get a taste of the results of their choices as above (or through some other method, I'm open to ideas).

[vharuck]

>Its' a very weak claim to having any skin in the game.

The government is the only entity that can legally take away my liberties, possessions, and life. By falling under its rule, all residents literally have their skins in the game.

Your starting point of money transfers could be read as an argument for better economic equality. If, for a person with a socially necessary and full-time job, taking more in taxes than they receive in benefits will financially ruin them, I won't blame the worker.

[snapplebobapple]

>The government is the only entity that can legally take away my liberties, possessions, and life. By falling under its rule, all residents literally have their skins in the game.

No, what that is is a recipe for tyranny of the majority (of weak performers) over the high performers by way of voting for policies that transfer wealth from the guys that got the job done to the guys that didn't. You are conflating the need for a strong constitution limiting government power with the idea that because maybe it's possible for the government to do some bad things to you you should get the right to tell the government to take from others and give to you.

Your second paragraph is just wrong. Money transfers are abusing one group for the benefit of a different group. It's weaponization of the very thing you incorrectly claimed as a reason you should get a vote in your first paragraph. The argument for transfers would be about network effects from the transfer being so great to the payer that they are better off (think providing healthcare has a network effect of healthier workers and customers making the paying business owner better off through increased sales/lower sick costs and other things of this variety) and the argument would be that if they weren't trying to freeload they would do the transfer anyway because it is in their interest. Your second sentence of your wrong second paragraph is wrong in the sense of being nonsensical. if you want to clarify what you mean I can then tell you why it's wrong from a logic perspective (or maybe I will agree with you, I can't tell).

[rustcleaner]

Maybe eliminate secret ballots to do an "if you vote for it/him, you pay for its/his costs" sort of system?

Or keep ballots secret and apportion taxes to districts or counties which vote for increased costs, and have it be sticky on move for 5-10 years. Also prevent new-comers from voting in local elections for a period of up to 5-10 years (while retaining the vote in the previous jurisdiction). All these things add costs to locust electorate and will slow down the californication of the south and midwest as californians continue to flee in droves. It's already causing political havoc in various locales.

Do not vote for garbage politics thus destroying your home, then move to a nice place with opposite politics just to vote your garbage again. You act like chauvinist locust when you do that, moving into new political ecosystems to destroy them into your 'ideal' vision.

If you move from blue to red state because your blue state went to hell, wait 5 or more years to register to vote. I only wish this was law so places like AZ can stay nice with lower crime, castle doctrine, and presumptive consealed carry.

Now to batton down my hatches, I sense a downvote typhoon in the air...

[snapplebobapple]

Secret ballot is important to avoid direct reprisal for voting the way you think is correct in the face of social pressure (the classic example is your union or your employer tells you to vote for someone you think is terrible. Without secret ballot you risk losing your livelihood for doing what you think is right) Thus you can only make sure the entire voting group has clear skin in the game and repurcussions from their group action.

forcing tax distribution is a bad idea too because there's lots of stuff it is in my interest to subsidize as a high tax payer in jurisdictions in which I don't vote (the most obvious examples being services around my factories in other states or for my customer base in other states, but there are many many other examples). I also need services in other places that are communal (i.e. I don't need a navy in nebraska but nebraskans sure benefit from the navy protecting the coasts). If you are going to do something like that it's better to clearly define government tasks and then keep levels of government out of tasks that they aren't assigned via a strong constitution.

You don't want to stop people from voting (same deal as why you want people in smaller, efficient companies making up the majority of the economy vs government and other forms of oligopoly) You just want them to experience pain from their bad choices so they are unlikely to do it again or have to really suffer to keep making bad choices so that eventually enough of them stop out that the good choice people shine through. I'm also not willing to claim their politics are garbage enough to want to stop them from voting (even though it looks like garbage to me) because I know I am not smart enough to account for all variables and accounting for all variables, at least enough to have something started to grow rapidly rather than having to start from scratch, is what all this individual freedom is great at. If I was smart enough to account for all variables we would be better government by a dictatorship of me and historically that has never turned out better than democracy on any timeline stretching past a couple rulers (this is also why we should be more agressively breaking up these large oligopolies we have let form since Rhenquist changed the supreme court position in the 70's. They aren't smart enough to have all that power either.