Two-Fold Purpose here:
1) I'd like to get some reasoned feedback on a thought I had a short time ago
2) I'd like to get the thoughts of other people about various political systems
I'd much prefer that this didn't devolve into slurs and abuse. Using political figures, bodies, or organizations as referents and examples is fine, mentioning them merely to deride and insult is not.
Something I've been considering over the past week or so is the problems of democracy as embodied by the contemporary United States. Per capita, voter turnout is routinely quite low, and from where I stand the vast majority of "political" discourse is abuse of the one party of another. The problem, I think, is the democracy requires an informed and interested electorate. By national law, every adult in the US is permitted to vote: damned few actually care to do so, and fewer still seem to actually understand the issues or candidates. By contrast, my impression of the electorate of Classical Athens is that they were both quite involved and very well informed. Admittedly, a much smaller state, but that got me to wondering.
Bear in mind this is a theoretical construct, and therefore bound only by the dictates of ethics and morality, not the guiding documents and laws of any nation. I agree the franchise ought to be available to any citizen of the nation. I do feel, however, that some sacrifice ought to required. As a starting point, I'm thinking 5% of annual income. Yes, this means Bill Gates would be paying millions, perhaps billions, for the chance to vote, whereas Ida Mae Wilcox pays less than $1000. The actual price isn't the point, the point is the sacrifice: both gave up something in order to have their opinion counted. My thought is this would encourage only those who are actually informed and invested to take part on the political process.
tldr; let's keep it polite and mature: is 5% of your income a reasonable price to pay to vote?