A near impossible literacy test Louisiana used to suppress the black vote

Can you explain to me why votes should be weighted differently at all?

When you have a tough problem and need advice, do you turn to your unemployed uncle? The homeless guy on the street corner? Of course not. Not all opinions are of equal value. Pretending that they are of equal value is asinine.

I’m not sure “seeking the best advice on how to run a government” would even make the top-5 reasons to have a democracy, if you polled political scientists.

[flagged]

This is frankly dangerous thinking. You're committing a cardinal sin, you're looking down on other people. An unemployed and homeless uncle might have more wisdom than a 30 year old with 4 degrees.

Obviously democratic voting should be as equal as possible. In fact, with today's technology we should be striving for "direct democracy" more than ever.

No no, I turn to the nepo baby of a nepo baby of a nepo baby of a nepo baby of a man who once had a plot of land that happened to sit on top of an oil field.

They know what’s going on, and you can tell by their credit score.

> Your feelings on the matter don't constitute an argument.

Nor do your feelings that poor people are de facto dumber than rich people.

You haven't provided an argument so there's nothing for me to disprove. You haven't specified in what ways preventing the poor to vote would help anything. You just said "well I wouldn't ask a poor person to help me buy something!"

They're citizens of our society and therefore any and all societal decisions will directly impact them. It is our right to have some amount of influence over decisions that directly impact us. You, yourself, understand that.

Why then should that concept not extend to the poor? This question is purely rhetorical - I know you don't have an answer, and probably the least embarrassing way forward would be to just say nothing. But, that's the perspective I'm addressing here and why I didn't bother to explain why the poor deserve those rights. I don't need to - I get those rights, and I like them, so that's the status-quo.

I guess it depends on the advice you're looking for but ...

* Unemployed uncle, I just got laid off from my FAANG company because the board needs to boost profits. Can you help me understand our welfare system so I can get on medicaid and unemployment?

* Homeless guy on the street, thanks for doing all that Occupy Wall Street stuff back in '11. What did you learn about organizing the fringes of society to try to change an unjust system? Any tricks I could apply to disenfranchised voters?

* Homeless guy on the street, I just found a giant sack of bagels in the dumpster. Are they good to eat or should I let them rot? By the way do you want some?

* January 17, 2038: Unemployed uncle, nobody can program anymore because we all just use AIs, however apparently talking into my tablet won't solve this Unix timestamp bullshit. What do you recommend?

Point is, sure, not all opinions of are equal value, but laying out judgements on others' opinions based on over-simplified mainstream prejudices narrows your ability to get good advice. That's partially what the article is about: blocking non-mainstream voters from making their voices heard.

I said no such thing.

>> Obviously democratic voting should be as equal as possible.

>Try making an argument in support of your point.

How about IT IS IN THE NAME

Demos: The people. Kratia: Rule.

Go ahead, start excluding people from "the people", see how far you get before someone with more influence or power decides you should be excluded.

> Your feelings on the matter don't constitute an argument.

Nor do your feelings that poor people have less informed, less useful, less credible, less valid, or less valuable opinions than rich people.

Better?

Are there enough of these people for it to matter? Let’s say instead of there being 5000 of these “nepo babies” (whose parents and environment of course never taught them anything so that they’re useless members of society in charge of massive fortunes because of chance alone because that just suits your world view best) there were now 50000. What policy changes might they now implement that would shake the foundations of our society?

To be clear, I said nothing even close to what's in your parens.

Off the top of my head: decades long precedence on regulatory agencies' authority, abortion rights, and Presidential immunity have all undergone dramatic reshaping in the last few years in large part driven by only one ultrawealthy person (Leonard Leo, born to wealth).

Your question is silly.

Progressive taxation dictates that more productive people take on more responsibility for running society than less productive people.