CO Civil Rights Division

[DDT951]

Social benefits, to the extent they exist (SNAP, disability, medicaid, etc.) should opt the recipient out from voting for the year(s) in which they were received. That doesn't mean they would get voted away either, as qualified voters still like a safety net too, and recipients could still vote after they stop receiving benefits.

Let us not forget Social Security. We (those that work) pay FICA tax and old people get entitlements. Before someone says "paid in" show me anywhere where the Federal Government says FICA is not a tax. You have no account with your name on it. You pay a tax to be redistributed to old people.

Some might find this objectionable, but the purpose is to eliminate voters ability to directly vote themselves the treasury, a long killer of governments whenever a republic transitions to a democracy.

I agree 100%.

Just look at what old people do when their SS entitlement is even hinted at being reduced or capped.

A system where people can vote to have money stolen for them via threat of government force, is not sustainable. Right now it is leading to massive deficits. At some point, it will come crashing down (and hard).

[Great-Kazoo]

Let us not forget Social Security. We (those that work) pay FICA tax and old people get entitlements. Before someone says "paid in" show me anywhere where the Federal Government says FICA is not a tax. You have no account with your name on it. You pay a tax to be redistributed to old people.







I agree 100%.

Just look at what old people do when their SS entitlement is even hinted at being reduced or capped.

A system where people can vote to have money stolen for them via threat of government force, is not sustainable. Right now it is leading to massive deficits. At some point, it will come crashing down (and hard).

Don't get old. Since this old guy is using a portion of my money, or someones to get my SS check.
I've also never fallen for the Democrats scare tactic of the R's want to take your SS benefits. Besides who in politics really gives a shit what "you" think? Certainly not the D's or R's

[ben4372]

Agreed there. On top of universal suffrage (not talking about women...)

What's given can never be revoked, so I know this isn't realistic. And I've talked about it before.

But to vote, you should have to prove two things:
a) Citizenship
b) You have future vested interest in the country.

Vested interest could be shown through one of a variety of methods:
A) Paid some federal taxes last year that were not credited/refunded.
B) Real property owner of at least (some minimum size, e.g. not 1SF parcels)
C) Business owner (with minimum thresholds)
D) Parent that pays for at least some portion of your own childcare expenses and insurance.
E) Other similar ideas.

This would still probably result in 60% of the pool being eligible to vote, as it's not that restrictive.

Social benefits, to the extent they exist (SNAP, disability, medicaid, etc.) should opt the recipient out from voting for the year(s) in which they were received. That doesn't mean they would get voted away either, as qualified voters still like a safety net too, and recipients could still vote after they stop receiving benefits.

Some might find this objectionable, but the purpose is to eliminate voters ability to directly vote themselves the treasury, a long killer of governments whenever a republic transitions to a democracy. I think this, even despite "get out the vote" campaigns, would still preserve an intelligent vote prevailing.

But, I know once given, never taken away, so we're boned to be a idiocracy eventually. At least we'll have Branwdo

I like this. I've been the victim of too many renters voting yes for some of the DUMBEST tax increases. Four big tax increases in the last 12 years. Low income transient people that don't own property worry not about property taxes.

[Aloha_Shooter]

How will it be less fair than what happened?

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/11/...essional-maps/

A SINGLE JUDGE decided it last time around....

Maybe I will take my chances on a 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 commission rather than a DEM judge.

At least with the single judge, you can point a finger at who issued the idiotic ruling and cite the logical fallacies in his/her ruling. There will be no transparency with the "impartial" commission, nothing to cite, no faces to blame and vote out of office.