<...position as to which side is right, only that one of them is more right than the other.

That statement might make sense in science and engineering, but it makes no sense in politics, which is about irrational human emotion and needs and desires on the large scale. One size does not fit all; all American have the right to pursue life, liberty, happiness, and self-interest as they personally define them. The inability to recognize that fact of human life is the defining characteristic of conservatives.

Women weren't granted the vote until early in the 20th century, and they've profited by it--they've been freer to pursue their own values for what constitutes life, liberty, happiness, and self-interest. It's not coincidental that they've contributed more to the economy since then. Can you defend not extending sufferage to women?

It took a century, but blacks profited by getting the vote, and gaining the political power to push for an end to segregation and economic discrimination. I understand that there are many conservatives who think they haven't "earned" it in purely economic terms, but there's no denying that as Americans they too are better able to pursue life, liberty, happiness, and self-interest. There's also no denying that as their standard of living has risen, they've contributed more to the economy and paid more taxes.

When the voting age was lowered to 18, those new voters gained a life and death say in how the government would spend their lives. Tom's plan to apportion political power according to taxes paid would have meant that that group, made up of college students or low-paid entry-level workers, would have had nearly zero say in how the government disposed of their lives.

Might there be some values more important than money? Values that should be reflected in political participation?

By what other mechanism than universal sufferage can you make sure that society includes those values?

Did you catch the cause-and-effect embodied in the examples above? Every time somebody is allowed to participate more fully in our political system, they've ended up participating more fully in our economic system. Even in the third example, you could argue that, as a result of their political participation, the boys who weren't killed went on to contribute to the economy; and to the extent that national capital was not squandered on the war, they preserved some of our wealth for private use.

So why even bother to rig the game to reward producers and punish consumers? Isn't it likely to backfire and prevent people from becoming producers?

oh yeagh? Oh yeagh?! Well 'your' post smacks of idealism
Thank you.

....and idealism is far from realism.
That's kinda sad, Justin. Idealism isn't a fantasy, it's being able to conceive of higher standards, of a better world, and believing that it's worth pursuing those goals.

I've not yet stated my model for a voting system, I will do so in a new thread.

I think it's time to adjourn this thread, and see what you came up with while avoiding idealism...just got the postice.

--Robert