Frankly that's a horrifying prospect - if I get seriously injured and have to go on permanent disability, I'd rather not be (further?) disenfranchised.

This is the same as saying "I don't believe disabled/poor people should be able to vote"

The disabled aside, no, I do not believe people who are withdrawing more from their society than they are depositing should be given a say in the governance of that society.

Doesn’t this create an incentive for those who make enough to vote to enact more laws to make it harder for those who can’t?

you say 'disabled aside' but what about the myriad of other reasons? Mental health, unemployment, pregnancy that year, international travel but still a citizen, w/e. As soon as you start pointing to reasons that a government can/ can't take away your power to vote you are screwed as a populace. Not that i have much faith in the voting system anyways cause' who knows how they count the votes anyways. It seems the incredibly old voting machines that they have could easily be hacked by a nation-state level effort.

>Mental health

If you're mentally unfit to contribute to society then I believe you to be unfit to weigh in on our governance.

>unemployment

I previously mentioned within x amount of years (where x is deemed reasonable) to account for short stints of unemployment. I do not want the long term unemployed weighing in on our governance.

>pregnancy that year

Already covered

>international travel but still a citizen

If you're not present and contributing to a society, in my view, you should absolutely not have a say in the governance of that society. In fact, I find the idea abhorrent.

>As soon as you start pointing to reasons that a government can/ can't take away your power to vote you are screwed as a populace.

Not really. Our species has survived and thrived for tens of thousands of years before widespread "voting" became available. The free-for-all in terms of access to voting is very modern, and very Western.

The modern West is, coincidentally enough, now in a freefall downward spiral from which it likely won't recover. We've went from high trust, well functioning societies where one person could go out to work in a blue collar job and support a family, to a very low trust society now hanging on to false premises like a house of cards, where even two people working full time can struggle to put food on the table.

Screwed as a populace? We're already frogs in the pot and that is with this fancy "everyone gets a say" notion in place.

>Not that i have much faith in the voting system anyways cause' who knows how they count the votes anyways.

My lack of faith in the voting system is that some entity, barely through puberty, highly influence-able, no skin in the game and therefore nothing to lose, can be told by some troglodyte celebrity to go vote for their (the celebrity's) candidate of choice and that vote is exactly equal to that of someone who contributes to society and invests their time in keeping on top of the issues that society faces.

Sorry, but when it comes to governing a society in the name of preserving and advancing its wellbeing, the above is nothing more than a joke and a cruel one at that.

"If you're not present and contributing to a society, in my view, you should absolutely not have a say in the governance of that society. In fact, I find the idea abhorrent."

Then perhaps folks living internationally shouldn't be taxed. the truth of the matter is that living elsewhere doesn't release you from being taxed or filing tax returns: Folks in high-tax countries won't get additional tax, but folks in cheap places do.

I'll add that there are myriads of reasons folks won't pay taxes: Staying home to take care of children or parents is one of them.

>Then perhaps folks living internationally shouldn't be taxed.

I 100% agree. This is unique to the USA, as far as I understand it, and only applicable to those earning over $100K, but in my opinion no non-resident should be taxed.

> Not that i have much faith in the voting system anyways cause' who knows how they count the votes anyways.

Your state’s Secretary of State should be able to describe the vote counting process and how it is monitored by third parties. Confidence in the voting system is crucial in a democracy. Having questions is good but the answers do exist.

Governmental legitimacy comes from much more than just property and taxation. The government is entrusted with the monopoly on violence, and thus anyone on whom this violence is expected to be applied deserves a vote. There are other reasons too, but this is an important one.

> and thus anyone on whom this violence is expected to be applied deserves a vote.

Or people who might be expected to get sent away to inflict violence and suffer the consequent dangers of doing so.

Heinlein was all sorts of fucked up, but his repeated idea of ex serving military being more equipped to vote for the people who get to choose to deploy the military certainly has some merit.

So the poor shouldn't be able to vote?

Let's come out and say it: this is a policy designed to consolidate power in the hands of the rich.

Universal suffrage is important.

I agree that low information voting is problematic.

But don't use that as an excuse to disenfranchise the poor. Poor people are often better informed the richer people.

>Poor people are often better informed the richer people.

I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm still going to ask for some proof to the above?