Midnight Musings

An observation.

Introduction

Universal suffrage is treated as a sacred pillar of democracy, but it is rarely questioned on logical or structural grounds. This essay challenges that assumption. Political systems are not moral in and of themselves—they are mechanisms. What matters is not whether they feel fair but whether they are functionally fair, sustainable, and aligned with reality.

Voting is Resource Allocation

A republic or a nation is not a morality play. It is a resource management system. Citizens contribute resources (primarily through taxes), and governments redistribute those resources via policies, programs, and services. To allow individuals who do not contribute to this pool to vote on how it is spent is irrational.

Consider a simple analogy: you and five friends buy a pizza. A sixth person who didn’t pay demands a vote on toppings. No one would accept this in real life, yet this is how democratic systems currently operate.

Contribution Should Determine Stake

Not all taxpayers are equal. Someone paying $1,000,000 into the system should not have the same influence as someone who pays $100. A flat vote per person ignores the reality that different people carry different burdens. Weighted voting—based on contribution or proportional effort—is more honest and structurally sound.

One fair variation is a flat tax system where voting is equalized by time, not dollars. For example:

• A person earning $10/hour pays 1 hour of labor for a 10% tax on 10 hours.

• A person earning $100/hour also pays 1 hour of labor for the same 10% rate.

Though their dollar contributions differ, their time burden is the same. This levels the field in a way that respects effort rather than emotion.

The Emotional Voter Problem

Universal suffrage assumes the average voter is rational, informed, and invested. In reality, voters are emotional, short-term focused, and often driven by tribal identity. This leads to populist demagogues who promise handouts in exchange for loyalty, pushing the system toward unsustainable entitlement.

Democracy Decays Without Guardrails

Mass enfranchisement without responsibility leads to decay. When the majority can vote itself the resources of a productive minority, the system turns parasitic. History confirms this pattern in Athens, Rome, and increasingly, modern democracies.

Common Objections and Rebuttals

*Objection 1: “This leads to plutocracy.”

Response: So what? Political systems are tools, not moral doctrines. If weighted voting creates better outcomes, it’s worth considering. Besides, we already have de facto plutocracy through lobbying and campaign financing. This just makes influence transparent and earned.

*Objection 2: “What about people who can’t pay taxes?”

Response: Then they don’t vote. It’s harsh but consistent. No one has a divine right to steer a ship they didn’t help build.

*Objection 3: “People are more than economic units.”

Response: Then shrink the state. A limited government with no economic control makes voting less consequential, and this entire debate becomes moot. The problem isn’t the proposal—it’s the size of government.

*Objection 4: “This disenfranchises the vulnerable.”

Response: Yes. And universal voting disenfranchises the contributors. Pick your injustice.

Conclusion

The point of a political system is not to make everyone feel good. It is to allocate resources efficiently, preserve stability, and protect freedom. Universal suffrage, while emotionally satisfying, undermines all three when divorced from contribution. A better system ties voting power to effort, ensures skin in the game, and stops rewarding irresponsibility. It may not be popular, but it will be fair.