> There is no reason at all for anyone but the Head of Household to vote, who's ever paying the bills and keeping it together.
What about healthy families that share this duty between the parents?
> Democracy becomes less stable as voting increases and individual equity falls. It becomes a race by politicians to dumb down the population and elections a race to see who can offer the public the most free stuff from "the government."
You're not going to improve this situation by reducing the voter pool. This makes it even easier to "dumb down the population and elections".
> Most people live in dream worlds and do not understand cause and effect relationships, especially young people.
You're telling us you've understood that only having the "Head of Household" vote is good. Why is it good (in ways not trivially countered as above)? Show us that we really are living in dream worlds, and you are not.
> Getting more and more uninvested people to vote is not a magic alchemical process. If so the biggest corporations would use the model to gain even more power.
> But they don't. You need to own shares in companies to vote. That's how they align their decisions with their future needs.
Sorry, but this makes no sense. Why would "the biggest corporations [...] use the model to gain even more power"? Who is saying "the electorate can gain more power by becoming bigger" or "the votes are worth more if there are more"? This is a strange non-sequitur.
What about healthy families that share this duty between the parents?
> Democracy becomes less stable as voting increases and individual equity falls. It becomes a race by politicians to dumb down the population and elections a race to see who can offer the public the most free stuff from "the government."
You're not going to improve this situation by reducing the voter pool. This makes it even easier to "dumb down the population and elections".
> Most people live in dream worlds and do not understand cause and effect relationships, especially young people.
You're telling us you've understood that only having the "Head of Household" vote is good. Why is it good (in ways not trivially countered as above)? Show us that we really are living in dream worlds, and you are not.
> Getting more and more uninvested people to vote is not a magic alchemical process. If so the biggest corporations would use the model to gain even more power. > But they don't. You need to own shares in companies to vote. That's how they align their decisions with their future needs.
Sorry, but this makes no sense. Why would "the biggest corporations [...] use the model to gain even more power"? Who is saying "the electorate can gain more power by becoming bigger" or "the votes are worth more if there are more"? This is a strange non-sequitur.