The rich are in the financial position to fund powerful political lobbies and to sponsor election campaigns in order to further their interests, but ordinary people only have the media to help further their interests.
Sadly, most of the British media is controlled by right-wingers such as Rupert Murdoch and, as a consequence, the welfare of people on low and middle incomes is not promoted.
With this being the case, the vote of a high net worth individuals should only count as half that of a vote of an individual of more modest means – with a “high net worth individual” being determined as someone with assets in excess of £500,000 and / or and an income in excess of £100,000 per annum.
If I'm a taxpaying pillar of the community without whom tonnes of public services and goods would not exist, my vote should go further than the vote of, say, an illegal immigrant who pays no taxes, is on welfare, and hasn't done a thing for the community except take someone's job.
We've all heard it said that the American Revolution began with the phrase, "No taxation without representation!" But the founding fathers codified the opposite viewpoint into the constitution as well. Only taxpayers were allowed to vote! At that time taxation was levied through property taxes, so you needed to be a land owner in order to vote. We now have a much broader tax base, but there is a sizable and growing population in this nation that receive MORE in tax dollars than they pay in. When that number reaches 51%, we will achieve a state of mob rule where those that receive demand everything of those that give. To combat this, I propose that you may either vote or you may receive governmental dollars, but not both. This includes ALL governmental money - welfare, pay for all government jobs, subsidies, etc. If the governmental dollars received exceed the tax dollars you've paid into the system you relinquish your voting rights for that period.
No, different people should not have different voting weights. That would presuppose that one person is inherently more valuable than another, and that is a terrible stance to take. It devalues human life and the human capacity for suffering. All humans are capable of suffering, therefore, all humans are equally important.
So for every CEO of a bank or major corporation, they get maybe 1 vote that is worth about 5 000 of yours. He's achieved a lot, just look!!! how crazy is that suggestion. If all men are created equal (which is in the constitution), then they get an equal weight for their vote as well. Case closed.
I can see the benefits of the most educated voters carrying the most weight in an election, but I'm afraid the temptation to deny minorities education and opportunity would be too great and power would be abused. Slaveowners would not allow slaves to own books and would punish them if they were caught reading for that very reason. People are easily controlled when they are "poor and stupid" and I believe if their voice were minimized, those who currently have no money and no education would remain that way forever. This is how revolutions begin, and it would only be a matter of time before our countrymen turned on each other again.
The American ideal states that all men are created equal, which implies, if not explicitly states, that they are supposed to be treated equally under the law. This includes the right to vote. To give different weights to someone's vote, for any reason, would be to give one person's vote preference over another. This runs contrary to the principles on which this country was founded, and to the whole concept of free elections.
Voting is a fundamental right of a democracy. It is the bedrock of choosing a representative government, and it should be offered equally to all people over 18. Once you start valuing or weighting people's votes, government becomes less democratic and more slanted towards a given socioeconomic class. Weighting votes becomes a form of institutional bias.
If certain people have more power when voting, then why even bother voting? If rich or powerful people get to choose who governs the people, then we no longer have a democracy. A powerful man and a poor man deserve the right to vote for their needs and necessities with equal value.
There is never a time when one person's voting power should be considered more valuable or right than any other person's. Giving someone additional rights when voting, like double weighting their vote, would be simply a legislated form of discrimination against those whose vote is not double weighted in that particular instance. Once a person is of age, if they choose to vote, then their vote should always be counted equally to the vote of every other person who chooses to vote.