"The urban states are subsidizing the rural states, and yet somehow in return, the rural states get more power at the voting booth."Clearly, Johnson Implies, justice demands that states which pay more into the public fisc should have a bigger say in public affairs. I think he, and the NY Times, should follow their logic to its natural conclusion: I think that an individual who pays more into the public fisc should have more of a say in public affairs. Let me spell this out in detail.
I believe that all the rules governing the franchise, as they now exist, should apply (and be enforced). In addition:
- The person must be active duty military or honorably discharge, OR
- The person must be a net contributor to the public fisc in at least three of the four years prior to the election.
There are some obvious immediate results. Of course, people whose sustenance comes mainly from public assistance will not be able to vote (as long as they remain on public assistance). Far more importantly, all public servants will be disenfranchised, including teachers.
This disenfranchisement is purely voluntary. If you like the pay and job security of the civil service, you are welcome to it, but you cannot vote. Is the vote that important to you? No problem, just get a job in the private sector (and not as a government contractor).
I wonder if Steve Johnson would agree with me? Nah! He's just fucking with us. Johnson is saying these things only to undermine the legitimacy of Donald Trump as POTUS. Had Barack Obama won the electoral college with a minority of the popular vote, Steven Johnson would have uttered nary a peep.
On the other hand, I really mean it.
No comments:
Post a Comment