Why! Won't! You! Die! Already!

Sweet Christ, not three days after I added them to the Blogroll, I find this crap at Polspy:

I have been rethinking my place in Canada’s democratic system, and I have to admit that some days I find the ‘one person, one vote’ concept rather offensive. It’s not a nice thing when you realize that your vote has the same value as Paul Bernardo’s vote, or the vote of a welfare bum who has never done and honest day’s work in his life.

Ahh yes, now I remember those stirring words by Thomas Jefferson. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that only some people count, and fuck the rest of you."

So this leads me to a radical thought: Why not weight a person’s vote on how much they contribute back to the country in terms of the amount of taxes they pay? Here’s how it works: everyone gets a base value attached to their vote (the basic deduction), but everything you pay over and above that adds weight to it.

This system favours those who are actually contributing to the country, while still giving a voice to those who don’t, although their voice will be minimized (rightfully so, in my opinion). This will lead to those screaming that rich people will ‘buy’ the government. Maybe, but let’s face it — they are already. The Irving family’s friendly treatment of the governing Liberals proves out that point.
...
Everyone still gets a say in the government, but those who are shouldering more of the loud get more of a say. Sounds fair to me. What do others think?

Well I'm glad you asked. I think Canada already had a system where the rich and powerful determined the political process, and it was called the Family Compact. It was, for those unfamiliar, what sparked the Rebellion of 1837, which added urgency to the reforms which led to the unification of Upper and Lower Canada in 1841, and from there Confederation. To put it another way, almost 170 years of modern Canadian political history has been a reaction against the dictatorship of the Family Compact, but we still have to fight this douchebaggery today. Why do bad ideas never die?

I love how Sean calls this idea "radical". See, I would normally associate radicalism with people who want to change the status quo, not entrench it. Sean admits that the rich and powerful already have a larger say in government than the poor, but rather than seek to address that problem like a committed democrat might, he wants to entrench that power and return us to aristocratic rule. Brilliant. Maybe next we can make Preston Manning a divine monarch. Hell, why not just go the Japanese route and make him divine? In short, why bother with democracy at all? I know Conservatives have never liked the fact that Canada doesn't respect their obvious genius, but this isn't going to change any minds.