- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should voting districts be determined by real estate value or household income?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 12:35 am
Posted on 5/2/26 at 12:35 am
Honest question. Supreme courts says color is old news. I wonder if income would do a better job of parsing out who has specific needs when it comes to political representation.
16
Posted on 5/2/26 at 1:22 am to VeniceBeachMouton
Wealthier people shouldn’t have more representation compared to working class people
Posted on 5/2/26 at 1:25 am to VeniceBeachMouton
No. If anything idiots who intentionally choose to move where houses are $500/sq ft instead of $150/sq ft should have less voting power. Reeee i can make 6 figures and pay 3x as much for everything reeeee.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 3:05 am to JasonDBlaha
quote:
Wealthier people shouldn’t have more representation compared to working class people
I guess you're probably not going to like my idea that people should have voting shares based on financial wealth. Yeah, probably not.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 4:05 am to VeniceBeachMouton
I hold some controversial views on voting. I believe far too many people are allowed to vote. Why should a 50-year-old who has never held a real job get an equal say on tax rates as someone who actually pays them? Why should people who were never eligible for the draft have a voice in electing leaders who decide whether to send troops to war?
The idea that individuals with no real skin in the game, lifelong failures or dependents, should have the exact same voting power as productive, successful citizens is deeply flawed. It’s the equivalent of handing your crackhead son unrestricted access to your bank account. It just doesn’t make sense.
That said, if we’re going to continue allowing universal suffrage, we should at least eliminate gerrymandering entirely. Realistically, voting districts should consist of simple parallel latitude lines cutting across each state. No more creative map-drawing by politicians. Achieving this nationwide would require a constitutional amendment, but it’s really the only practical way to at least make this dumb system truly equal.
The idea that individuals with no real skin in the game, lifelong failures or dependents, should have the exact same voting power as productive, successful citizens is deeply flawed. It’s the equivalent of handing your crackhead son unrestricted access to your bank account. It just doesn’t make sense.
That said, if we’re going to continue allowing universal suffrage, we should at least eliminate gerrymandering entirely. Realistically, voting districts should consist of simple parallel latitude lines cutting across each state. No more creative map-drawing by politicians. Achieving this nationwide would require a constitutional amendment, but it’s really the only practical way to at least make this dumb system truly equal.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 4:29 am to VeniceBeachMouton
Every state should have vertical lines that draw districts from the bottom of their state to the top. As an example if a state has only two districts the state would be divided in half by a line that runs north and south with half the residence on one side and half the people on the other side.
No decisions to make. Not crazy carving out districts for special interest. No human input allowed other than input of people into the database.
No decisions to make. Not crazy carving out districts for special interest. No human input allowed other than input of people into the database.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 6:13 am to VeniceBeachMouton
How about for every $10,000 you pay in federal income taxes you get a vote?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 7:30 am to JasonDBlaha
quote:Then everyone should pay the same amount in taxes. Not the same rate, but the same amount. Like a $10,000 citizen tax.
Wealthier people shouldn’t have more representation compared to working class people
The bottom 30-40% of households don't pay any income tax, and yet they all get to vote to determine how everyone else's taxes are spent? That doesn't seem fair.
One of the pillars of the American revolution was the phrase "no taxation without representation". What would happen if the inverse were true? No representation without taxation.
If votes were doled out based on how much you paid in taxes, do you think the wealthy would pay even more in taxes? Sweden once had a system where you could buy up to 5,000 votes for yourself.
In the end, representation isn't just about determining how your tax dollars are spent; it's also about putting protections in place for the under-represented, because honestly, the wealthy already wield considerable infuence in politics wihile technically only having one vote per person.
What if all of the billionaires in American got together and decided they wanted to bring slavery back?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 7:34 am to VeniceBeachMouton
Say, how about geography?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 7:41 am to cssamerican
quote:
Why should a 50-year-old who has never held a real job get an equal say on tax rates as someone who actually pays them? Why should people who were never eligible for the draft have a voice in electing leaders who decide whether to send troops to war?
Same. Why should people who don't own property be able to raise my property taxes?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 8:21 am to Victor R Franko
quote:
people should have voting shares based on financial wealth.
Sounds great when you’re thinking about the gainfully employed vs the welfare queens. Not so great when you think about the top 10% manipulating the bottom 50% in order to keep the middle class strapped to the treadmill. Which is pretty much what we’re doing now.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 8:38 am to OccamsStubble
quote:So, no districts that slither like a snake from Shreveport to the delta down to Baton Rouge?
Say, how about geography?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:07 am to VeniceBeachMouton
I say by zipcode
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:21 am to VeniceBeachMouton
Wealth shouldn’t determine voting shares, but one should have to pass a general intelligence test to vote.
I wouldn’t mind if owning real estate gave a vote fractionally more power since real estate owners are more impacted by most policies.
Being employed should give another fractional increase to the vote’s power.
I wouldn’t mind if owning real estate gave a vote fractionally more power since real estate owners are more impacted by most policies.
Being employed should give another fractional increase to the vote’s power.
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:31 am to omegaman66
quote:
Realistically, voting districts should consist of simple parallel latitude lines cutting across each state
quote:
Every state should have vertical lines that draw districts from the bottom of their state to the top. As an example if a state has only two districts the state would be divided in half by a line that runs north and south with half the residence on one side and half the people on the other side.
And so it begins…
Vertical or horizontal? Which is better to preserve “our democracy”?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:46 am to VeniceBeachMouton
quote:
Should voting districts be determined by real estate value or household income?
No, but I could see certain government benefits limiting one's vote.
As long as someone is on SNAP or TANIF, or Section 8 for 2 of the last 4 years their right to vote should be suspended.
I don't care if someone is Rich or Poor, owns land or nothing,
If you are an American citizen who isn't sponging off the rest of the tax payers (or a felon in some states) you should keep your vote.
This post was edited on 5/2/26 at 9:49 am
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:49 am to VeniceBeachMouton
How about making the whole state a grid with equal size squares. District one is the all the squares, in order, until population is met (around 800,000 now). District 2 is next set of squares, and so on.
This post was edited on 5/2/26 at 9:50 am
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:49 am to OccamsStubble
quote:
Say, how about geography?
So, large urban areas with dense black/minority/Democratic voting populations wouldn't be carved out into multiple districts to dilute the voting power of said groups? In addition to not slicing into rural areas with said voting populations so that rural voters/red areas are diluted, of course.
That kind of geography?
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:50 am to cssamerican
Voting should be for those that contribute to America and actually pay taxes
Posted on 5/2/26 at 9:51 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
How about for every $10,000 you pay in federal income taxes you get a vote?
On your thought, what about an annual tax on the number of people in your family? 5-10k per person. This could impact the number of low income, low output reproduction, while enhancing the idea of creating a population of producers? Remove income tax. Better yet: reduce government spending by 25%. Spitballing here.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News