A modest adjustement for the electoral college

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Fair is fair. If you're a taker, you don't get a say in how you're governed.

Do we extend this definition of taker to anyone who takes money from the coffers? Or is it ok to be a net drain on the finances if you hold certain government contracts?

If you net more benefits of any kind than you pay in taxes, you don't vote.

Whether natural person or corporation, regardless of whatever contracts held.

For the record, I believe corporate personhood is one of the biggest threats to our republic.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: datasdream

No one is howling. People are pointing out, as Trump did in the past, that the electoral college system should be revisited as the system used.
Trump actually said to get rid of it.

Why should it be revisited? It works just fine.

Some are questioning it. More people voted for Clinton. I am not saying that is a reason to get rid of it, but taxation without representation has been brought up.

Trump called it a disaster.

Funny you bring up taxation without representation....
... my cost of living nearly doubled under WJC and now I'm getting taxed for not having health care, not to mention a nearly 50% increase in my cost of living over the last 8 years.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
If you net more benefits of any kind than you pay in taxes, you don't vote.

Whether natural person or corporation, regardless of whatever contracts held.

For the record, I believe corporate personhood is one of the biggest threats to our republic.

That's not what I was getting at. The government directly employs people, those people are a much bigger drain on tax dollars than any welfare program. Military, police, fire fighters, road crews, teachers, and so on. These groups are all employed directly by tax dollars. Why do they get to vote, while other recipients of tax dollars don't?