[0.E.O]

Needless to say, if only a small group of taxpayers voted, the crap would be gone, and an entirely different slate of candidates would emerge.

You're dreaming.

[oblomov]

No, I’m not. I say, let the market determine the value of a vote.

Currently, voting has no cost, other than the small amount of time and inconvenience required.

When an item is free, there is a deadweight societal cost. In the case of voting, the value of a vote has been diluted by those who have no stake in the outcome other than to ensure they get a piece of the spoils.

For net recipients of transfer payments, there is a positive value to voting. For net payors, the best argument for voting is that by voting, one can attempt to lessen the amount of property the state will confiscate.

If there are no spoils to be had, then there would be no justification for the entire leviathan state apparatus.

But my idea won’t happen. The US will eventually collapse economically. The system is thoroughly corrupt, and I welcome the collapse.