I feel that we have crossed a threshold in this country where the people have decided that it is better to vote themselves other people's money than to stand up on principle, and this crowd's banner carrier is Barrak Obama. I have long felt that the right to vote is too widely extended. I really don't think that our founding fathers intended this type of "if you have a pulse" democracy. I don't think they envisioned activist groups rounding up homeless people, registering them to vote, telling them who to vote for, and then giving them coffee and cigarettes.
Anytime I think about how to rework the requirements, I hit a brick wall, until now. I feel that in order to vote, you must have a more vested interest in voting than just having a pulse. My solution is based on taxes. If you do not pay any income taxes, such as myself, you should not be able to vote. Because of the number of children I have and the income I make, I pay no taxes and actually still get a refund because of the child tax credit. If I was a selfish unprincipled person, I would vote for the candidate that would either perpetuate this tax credit or increase it. This is fundamentally wrong.
My rule would say that in order for you to be able to vote in national elections and if you pay no income taxes, you must opt out of whatever tax break is causing you to pay no taxes. In my case, I would have to opt out of the child tax credit. Because I pay into the system, I might be more likely to pay attention to the election and issues and vote on principle.
But our tax system is so complicated, how do you implement the opt out program and what is the minimum that must be paid? I agree that it is too complicated and may be exclusionary. The way around this is to either implement a Flat Tax or preferably a National Sales Tax. This way you ensure that everyone has equal stake and opportunity to vote.