The NY Times should forget about a paywall. The revenue problem that needs addressing for major papers is the loss of their reporting content to other news sites. They should be charging fees to the copycats out there who are sucking the golden eggs so fast the goose is falling off its feet. Make those guys pay. Not the readers.
I certainly did read it. It and you are arguing for the abolishment of one-man-one-vote. I didn't realize that I needed to point out that we have things like the Voting Rights Act, the 15th amendment, the 24th amendment, the 19th amendment, a variety of SCOTUS decisions like Reynolds v Sims, all of which reflect a general recognition that every citizen is entitled to a full vote. Nobody's vote counts more than anyone else's. Period. Black, white, male, female, young old, regardless of everything. We even let people vote that can't read the ballot.
Why is that? Because there is no way to agree on any weighting formula that wouldn't be seen as unfair to somebody.
I agree, liking an idea doesn't make it unconstitutional. But independent of the fact that I don't like the idea, it's unconstitutional.
Of course you are free to start a movement to get the majority of the country to petition the states and representatives to repeal the voting rights act, women's suffrage, etc etc and apply your arbitrary formula. Let me know how that works out for you. :-)
Sounds like a youthful tantrum happening here. Proves my point. Can we have the vote formula reduce the weight for using all caps?
By the way, not following you on how life experience causes wars, deregulation, incarceration, and Orwellian government. I could blame it on the apathy young voters exhibit by not showing up at the polls.
The US Constitution requires a census to ensure fair representation of seats in the House. We're supposed to strive for a one-person-one-vote type of thing. This sorta goes against that, so I'd say it'd be considered unconstitutional.
Aside from that minor glitch, it makes no sense. The idea that older people's knowledge, experience, and emotional maturity should count less than people that probably haven't had children yet, can't appreciate why they need Medicare, don't know the names of their local representatives, are still taking financial support from their parents, have never had a mortgage...is just ridiculous.
The logic that old people don't have to live with the consequences of policy decisions as long as young people isn't really true. Some consequences only happen when you're old, like cutting Medicare benefits. Young people might feel cut off from the consequences if they won't kick in for 30 yrs, whereas older people would be more focused on it now.
Anyway, what a waste of time even talking about this. Worst idea I've seen in a long time. Wreaks of the arrogance of youth.