No R or D (or any letter) by the name on the ballot. That would make it a bit tricky for those who don't look at anything else.

Government employment (outside the military) is similar to some trade unions with regard to voting. Having a large block of voters with a financial interest in increasing the size of government to create an economic boon for those voters is one issue I'd like to see addressed and the simple way is to deny them a vote because they have a conflict of interest that loots from the people.

The BIG problem for us as a society is how the franchise has been trivialized from the founding of America until where we find ourselves today.

This country was born from unrest over lack of representation. The franchise, having a say in your own destiny and government, was Important!!

Now, it has become a joke.
The political class does not want informed thinking voters.
They want sheeple that accept everything and question nothing.
The more widely the franchise has been extended, the more collectivist the country has becom.

As was said early on...."We are leaving you a republic, if you can keep it"

It appears that very few of us want a republic, instead the public has become somewhat conflicted.

On one hand hand with the seeming intent to pass the presidency between two families we are trying a new new nod for divine right of kings.
On the other hand, given the last 6 years, the explosive expansion of entitlement programs, and the death of both qualification and accountability, the public likes mob rule.


If you do not care about government and how it affects your life, why on earth do you think Government cares a whit about you?


Government in America was intended to protect our individual freedoms.

Government was not intended to support people unwilling to support themselves.

I'm not behind denying the vote to people collecting a paycheck from the government, just because the government is their employer.

They are employed, which is a big plus, as opposed to people receiving government assistance. Whether their job qualifies them as gainfully employed or not is a different question.

Military personnel are something of a special case in my eyes. Everyone in the military has their performance reviewed by their peers and documented. I grant that the review system has its flaws, but you would be hard pressed to find a performance assessment system as effective in other sectors of government employment.

National defense is one of the primary functions of government. As such, if the franchise was removed from some but not all government employees... military personnel should retain their franchise in my opinion.

Military personnel below high flag rank don't have any more influence or impact on whether or not combat deployments happen than any other voter. So in that light, too far removed to vote themselves a job or raises.

Military pay rates are set by the legislature so raises or lack thereof roost there.

About the same percentage as were able to vote in the late 1700's.

You avoid voters who would respond to those stupid attack ads showing the opponent in images made to look like surveillance footage, "What do we really know about XYZ's dirty backroom dealings?"

At the same time it avoids having some gov't body determine "truths" on issues. Voters could be required to know whether candidate X *says* he'll push for a higher minimum wage, but you couldn't have a question about whether the candidate is likely to follow through or whether such a policy would increase unemployment, reduce/increase poverty, and so on.

That brings up some good questions. Should the military personnel be able to vote themselves more money? Should they be able to vote themselves a job? (Voting for wars, etc...) Points system seems to make sense for that.

Agreed, Techno. Military 'employees' below rank of xxx and with service time less than 8 years, should not be prevented from voting on that basis. What do you think about those who choose the military as a lfetime career, or those who have risen to high rank?

Excellent question, minnie. And who decides what the questions and the right answers are? Multiple choice quiz doesn't work, does it? Has to be an essay answer demonstrating some ability to think and reason.

Candidate Says? How does knowing what a candidate's lies are qualify someone to vote?

Their are government paychecks and government paychecks.

Military are paid by the government for example.

How would someone prove their understanding of the topics you mentioned?

A start would be just knowing the basic facts, not on controversial facts, but basic facts on what the candidate says she will do on particular issues.

Great idea!
Govt paycheck? no vote regardless of other circumstances

Might be able to identify them at the far end of the rifle rangle with a scope.

Sounds like a job for some common core math, eh?

Oh, and at that point, I think voting should be out of the question. Don't you?

1/4 brain?
minus a brain?

How about a multiple vote point system?
Citizen of legal age? 1 point
Job? 1 point
Own Property? 1 point
Own a business? 1 point (each?)
Half a brain? 1 point
Whole brain? 1 point

Receiving entitlements? -2 points
Govt. paycheck? -1 point

And so on....

How about this then.

Proof of citizenship
Proof of residence
Positive ID
$100 poll tax, cash or credit card, no personal checks
All presented and verified before voting is allowed.

That high a poll tax, would keep the parties from busing in zombies to vote for them

While I agree with the idea, Imo, paying taxes should not be a benchmark for voting due to the insane complexity of the code. For example, someone retired could lose the vote as a result after being productive for a lifetime, and having rational experience that no young person could match.

However, my list of education issues should have specifically included understanding how income taxation destroys wealth and productivity, and encourages central state power, and reduces individual liberty.

Initially if it was not phased in, it would cut out a lot of voters, but it might be instituted so that voters had 2 years to become educated and (where possible) to change their financial plan.
Yes, the free loaders and the ignorant shouldn't have the right to dictate terms to the productive, and to destroy simultaneously the productivity that makes their standard of living possible. But they should have the opportunity to earn suffrage through actions.

Does not go far enough to reduce people voting themselves free stuff.

for example...

A part time worker making $10k per year, pays about 1.5K or so in taxes, they then get all that plus more back because of tax law. Plus they collect somewhere between 20-50k in other payouts from "programs" depending on state.

You don't think they will always vote for more programs? Why not, they aren't funding them.

How about just pay taxes at all?

Wonderful, Jaysun!