So if it's about skin in the game, then the people owning the most property should have more votes.
Why should someone living in a dinky little house on a tiny lot get the same voting power as someone who owns thousands and thousands of acres of land?
The people paying the most in taxes should get more votes, right? They have more skin in the game, don't they?
But if trying hard is the reason, then obviously those who own lots of land are trying harder than those who have parked a broken down trailer on 1/10th of an acre of scrub land.
What if they own a home, but they inherited it, and never worked for it? Do they still get to vote?
What happens when couples get divorced and one of them gets the house? Does the other have to start all over again in order to get their voting rights back?
Who gets to decide what "enough" work is? The average home buying power of the average income 20, 30+ years ago is much more than it is today.
So if it's about skin in the game, then the people owning the most property should have more votes.
Why should someone living in a dinky little house on a tiny lot get the same voting power as someone who owns thousands and thousands of acres of land?
The people paying the most in taxes should get more votes, right? They have more skin in the game, don't they?
But if trying hard is the reason, then obviously those who own lots of land are trying harder than those who have parked a broken down trailer on 1/10th of an acre of scrub land.
What if they own a home, but they inherited it, and never worked for it? Do they still get to vote?
What happens when couples get divorced and one of them gets the house? Does the other have to start all over again in order to get their voting rights back?
Who gets to decide what "enough" work is? The average home buying power of the average income 20, 30+ years ago is much more than it is today.
There are just too many holes in your argument.