Why we need voter reforms

Cactus Kate has said that the referendum is a crock, instead of selecting voting systems we should be looking at voter qualification. Her belief is that Net taxpayers only should vote, anyone who is a Net Tax-taker should be forced to abstain. We need voter reforms not electoral reforms. Here is why.

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians.  Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals.  It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country — which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

This is exactly the same situation here in NZ. With the Unions, Labour and the Greens actively running voter registration and then cajoling them to vote on election day. It is for precisely the above reasoning.

Is it any surprise then that the unions, Labour and the Greens are therefore devoting much of their campaign energy, money and labour to retaining MMP, the very system that enables non-productive segments of the population to vote themselves an income?

Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn’t about helping the poor.  It’s about helping the poor to help themselves to others’ money.  It’s about raw so-called social justice.  It’s about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Same here. We need to seriously be looking at a system that encourages selfish voting behaviour to the detriment of the economy and the nation.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

Tagged:
  • Riley

    Is this satire or are you really making this claim?

    Wow. Please for the love of yourself and our democracy reconsider what you have just written; this is despicable.

  • Riley, why is this despicable? Why should those who don’t contribute to the country’s treasury have any say whatever in the distribution thereof? The Universal Franchise is one of the primary contributing factors to the destruction of Western civilisation.

    This is a massive problem with socialism entrenched right across the West; it’s like an infestation of termites – once it’s in it’s damn near impossible to eradicate. Even if the politicians in government had the will to tackle the social problems the poor bring upon themselves by continually voting themselves more of Other People’s Money (and I don’t for a second believe the cowards, traitors and appeasers in the current National Party government have the will), it’s political suicide to do so, because those people who vote on the basis of how much of Other People’s Money they are promised will simply vote for the other team.

  • diabolos

    The Poor in New Zealand – most of them actually work – many of them are or were – the middle class. Or are we talking about disenfranchising only those people on a benefit. How do we define the non productive – or will we hear the rumble of gas-vans coming on our streets at 2am to avoid too much public attention.

    What about those who are made poor because of the economy and put out of work.

    Perhaps instead of a “heaving underclass..” we actually have a “heaving ruling class…” those born to rule and screw everyone else. What is written here is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. Its also deeply disturbing that people can actually propose this sort of stuff. No different to the Soviet System (which masqueraded as a Socialist Ideal) – only the Vlasti – the ruling class had any franchise at all. The rest were cogs in the state machine.

    Small Government – for whom? I think i have a fair idea. But then maybe the post is a provocative satire … tongue in cheek perhaps. Hope it is.

  • db..

    Remember always, that one judges others as yourself.
    Bit uncomfortable being a layabout lefty. Heh, move along.

  • Let me see, who is a net taxpayer these days? Not Sam Morgan or Marc Ellis (no tax paid on their capital gains), not Telecom shareholders and employees (UFB subsidy), not Cera-contracted firms (Govt subsidy for quake repairs), not SCF bail out beneficiaries (taxpayer guarantee), not MPs, teachers, superannuitants, policemen, judges and SAS members. Will there be any taxpayers left but PAYE employees in non-state subsidised companies?

  • bdog

    I agree, the Chinese system does away with all that selfish voting business and haven’t they done well.
    Poor people vote just for their own (benefit) as the do the middle class (working for families), as do the rich ( tax cuts). Greedy go no where voting across all sectors of society.

  • Bill

    Democracy is our best system, but it carries within it the seeds of it’s own destruction.

    People will vote for whoever gives them the most, money, benefits, tax breaks etc.

    When politicians have run out of tax money to give away, they borrow, then sell assets, until there is nothing left, then print more money.

    Eventually the whole system collapses with hyperinflation, devaluation, or war.

  • thor42

    I agree with WO.
    There are still many tens of thousands of people in this country who think that the world owes them a living. It doesn’t.
    Old saying – “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
    The debate about welfare has been completely skewed. Everyone talks about “rights”.
    Almost no-one talks about RESPONSIBILITIES.
    If you don’t contribute, then you should not expect to participate. No participation without contribution.

  • Phronesis

    With regards to working for families and corporate welfare the obvious answer is to give people a choice, accept the welfare or get to vote. Pretty obvious what happens at the next election.

    • thor42

      Well said, Phronesis!

  • Pingback: I'm with John Pagani on this one | mydeology | mydeology()

  • rouppe

    Sorry, but don’t agree with this…. it ends up going back to the times when only those that owned land, or were the ‘right class’ could vote.

    That way is bloody revolution.

    Disclaimer: I own land – several bits.

  • MrV

    Adopt the swiss cantonal system of government. That way politicians are more accountable to their regional governments. And you are free to set differing governing policies in different regions.

  • axeman

    I see that your FB link on this topic was invaded by a frothing toadie of Bumber, the useful village idiot of the leftards. Spouting the usual “take it from the creators and earners and give it to the collective idle” socialist bullshit.

  • Geraint Scott

    Wow, was it you or Cactus Kate who is enough of a tool to steal content from Care2 to make you points as a right wing blogger?! Here is an excerpt from the other half of that article that neither of you bothered to copy.

    So, if you are on welfare, if you receive unemployment benefits, if you get disability or food assistance, you no longer get to vote because you would vote for people more likely to continue these programs? Wouldn’t it be just as logical then to strip the vote from owners of corporations who benefit from government deregulation? Or the ultra wealthy who vote in politicians who will provide additional tax breaks, or even better, allow they to stop paying taxes on their stock earnings and other non-wage labor?

    Come up with something original next time, jackass.

  • Geraint Scott

    Wow, was it you or Cactus Kate who is enough of a tool to steal content from Care2 to make you points as a right wing blogger?! Here is an excerpt from the other half of that article that neither of you bothered to copy.

    So, if you are on welfare, if you receive unemployment benefits, if you get disability or food assistance, you no longer get to vote because you would vote for people more likely to continue these programs? Wouldn’t it be just as logical then to strip the vote from owners of corporations who benefit from government deregulation? Or the ultra wealthy who vote in politicians who will provide additional tax breaks, or even better, allow they to stop paying taxes on their stock earnings and other non-wage labor?

    Come up with something original next time.

48%