That is a great idea! I always said ones vote should be weighted to the amount of taxes one paid to the level of government in question minus rebates and benefits received. So a guy who pays a hundred thousand a year gets one hundred times the vote of a guy who pays one thousand a year, buy the guy who pays one thousand dollars a year gets more say than every welfare scab in the country. If someone is on welfare they need to be thinking about how to get off welfare not how to run the country, for fucks sake they can't even run their own life.
Yes on the individual level but at the state level no.
Income required to vote how taxes are spent makes sense. If you are not paying taxes, or havent paid taxes you have no skin in the game. On the other side of the coin abolish income and property taxes than all voters will be equal.
Problem with your example above and weighting toward level of wealth is that a few oligarchs will run the country so it needs to be........
One man one vote regardless of standing.
A GDP College destroys the purpose of the Electoral College.
Enemies of the Electoral College are pissed that Wyoming's vote has any bearing on the Presidential Election.
If it were up to them only population centers would matter. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles would decide the Presidential vote.
but New York, Chicago, nor Los Angeles would exist if the farmer or rancher in the low population areas were not producing to feed them therefore the votes of the lower population centers need to be weighted to allow their voice to have the importance it deserves.
Im guessing Hillary got this idea from studies such as this.....
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...de-high-output-america-vs-low-output-america/
******Note I have not seen where she expressed it, it was stated she said it on talk radio
