Re: A simple proposition to fix democracy in U.S.

The idea of a poll tax (charging people to vote) is expressly
forbidden in the US Constitution. (Ammend XXIV Section 1 "The right of
citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election
for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice
President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of
failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.")  Of course, you could
apply the tax to state offices, but that would probably not stand
constitutional challenge either.

One motive for setting it at all would be to make the vote more
valuable to people.  Folks tend to take more seriously what they've
paid for. Yet the "stronger" motive would be to eliminate the poor
from voting. Older democracies (eg. Great Britian) based the right to
vote on property ownership.  The right to vote was reserved to
property owners in part to ensure that the poor could not use
political power to steal money from the rich (something which happened
in ancient Athens, and it can be argued, is happening in modern
Western democracies).  Still, the problem here is the level at which
the tax is to be set.  Why $200?  Why not $2,000? Why not higher?

If you are going to limit individual voting rights, perhaps the "best"
way to do so would be to limit the vote to those who pay taxes.  Of
course, in states with sales taxes this would be no limitation at all.
 At the Federal level, the best mode would seem to be income taxes. If
you actually pay any income taxes, you get to vote (note that this
would eliminate better than 40% of adults).

Still, at the end of the day, the problem is not getting fewer or
greater NUMBERS of PEOPLE to vote.  The problem is rather that we have
ELMINIATED the right of a whole constituancy to be represented in the
Federal government.  The problem is not who now has the vote... its
who doesn't! The Founders envisioned TWO types of political entities
to be represented in the Federal government... the people (in the
House) and the STATES (in the Senate).  While the people choose their
Representatives directly, the powers and rights of the States were
protected in the Senate, by Senators elected by the state governments.
 Note US Consitution, Article 1, Section 3 "The Senate of the United
States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by
the legislature thereof, for six years;"  This ensured that the powers
of the states would not be encroached by an ever-expanding Federal
government.

This protection has not been in place since 1913. The problem goes
back to Ammendment XVII, which says in part, "The Senate of the United
States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by
the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one
vote."  The States no longer have a voice in the Federal government.
There is no longer any elected official in Washington with a vested
interest in protecting the powers and rights of the States and thereby
limiting the powers and reach of the Federal government.  The voters
which Senators "fear" are the people, not the state legislators who
wish to preserve their own (lesser) power.

Restoring the rights of the legislatures of the several states to
elect US Senators would serve several purposes:
     1) It would give the States the power (indirectly) to protect 
             their interest in limiting the Federal government.
     2) It would increase the significance of congressional races, 
             as this would be the place the people would directly 
             express their voice in the Federal Government.
     3) The increased significance of congressional races would
             likely result in higher voter turn-out and more
             informed voters.  This would also impact Presidential
             elections, which are held along with the races for
             Congress in the appropriate years.
     4) It would increase the significance of state legislature 
             elections, because those elected would choose the 
             Senators.
     5) The increased significance of state legislature races 
             would likely result in higher turn-out and more 
             informed voters in these races.  Also impacting 
             other state elected races being decided on the same 
             ballot.
     6) Finally, and perhaps best, this proposal would greatly 
             complicate the task of paid lobbiests.  Instead of 
             being able to put money into the campaign chests of 
             200 candidates (one from each major party for each 
             Senate seat), they would be faced with the full 
             legislators of the 50 states (presumambly numbering 
             more than 5,000).  That's a lot more campaigns to 
             finance! Further, because Senators would be elected 
             by the legislature there would not be state-wide 
             campaigns on the current models. People seeking 
             the Senate would not need as much money to promote 
             their candidacy (perhaps 150 "voters" [ie-legislators] 
             or so). Also, payments to the legislators to elect a 
             certain candidate would be bribes, no longer deniable 
             as mere "campaign contributions."

Of course, restoring the rights of the States in this way would
require a new Ammendment to the Constitution (repealing the 17th).
This is a political pipe-dream.  It simply won't happen.

But I guess dreaming is all this thread has really been about, so why
shouldn't I dream too?