[Point Four]: "Until we place quality for voters on the same level as quantity of voters, we will continue to elect officials with the lowest common denominator of the voters. When the tax consumers out vote the taxpayers both the property and the liberty of the minority is held hostage by the tax-consuming majority. It shocking when one considers that more knowledge has to be demonstrated earning the privilege of driving a car, getting a hunting license or cutting someone's hair than it takes to qualify to vote. Why should someone who is a convicted felon be allowed to vote? Why should someone living on government subsides be allowed to vote? Why should someone who files bankruptcy be allowed to vote? In all of these cases the individual has proven he is not responsible enough to manage his own affairs. Being unable to manage one's own affairs should not be a qualification for running the affairs of state".
Is Point Four Valid?:
Since some of the forum members appear to support point four, how about subjecting it to some criticism? Let's see where some reflection takes us.
Corporate Welfare vs. Human Welfare or "Taxpayer" vs. "Tax consumer".
Thesis: A large group in modern society offers no financial or ancilliary input. This group should not determine the political composition of the organic whole. Political participation is earned. It is not a human right.
Your thesis is flawed.
Political participation should be denied to those who have demonstrated the inability to successfully manage their own affairs.
This is the logical fallacy called Strawman.
Observation: We all know where this argument takes us. It suggests that the rich should vote and the poor should not. But do the rich really pay tax or contribute to the social organism? The United States does not have a real social welfare system. The benefits run from modest to mythical. The percentages of taxation input run at the lowest levels in the industrialized world. So what, you say? You think that this is an argument for "Point Four"? Well, why is it that the corporations in America receive around $125 Billion per year in tax breaks, subsidies, etc. With the further creation of tax holidays (on a yearly basis), the NYT argues that all of this will "further erode the nation's corporate tax base and impugn the system's integrity". The NYT argues that the corporations seem to be creating a case whereby they would no longer pay any tax at all. American corporate subsidies are already the hightest in the world. And, I tell you, the rich just love these handouts. "Why should someone living on government subsides be allowed to vote"...hmmm.
Corporations do not vote.
Logical fallacy Red Herring
Observation: What does productive even mean? There are many people who perform non-productive labour. Some people teach, others are crown lawyers, some are members of the military. None of these people build anything. In fact, they all receive their money from the STATE...just like a welfare recipient. The civil service of any country is massive, but it is wrong to argue that all members of private enterprise are productive. Private companies and organizations also have a lot of "dead-weight". Not only do most organizations support "Dad's idiot son(s)", they have hundreds and thousands of rubber-stampers, advertisers, telemarketers, sales people, filers, clerks, copiers, organizers, etc. None of these people build anything. Most of their jobs can be replaced by machines. Only the working class (on the line) build anything. Maybe only they should vote? But that would be communism. In any case, the rich shareholder who inherited all of their money is classified as a parasite by some people.
You have not proven what productive means and misrepresented what communism is.
Logical fallacy Appeal to Ignorance
Observation: The argument that voters need some kind of special education is often made. Some people have suggested that those who wish to have children should also go to college. Ok. But this argument can be made for many things. It is utterly flawed because it confuses human rights with something earned. Do we need to go to school to learn how to breathe? Do you we need schooling to learn how to speak? No. Why, then, can we breathe or speak. The answer is simple. Because we can. Becoming a medical doctor is different because it is not a part of our genetic makeup. Organizing in a collective is! I repeat, organizing in a collective is a part of our genetic code. It is instinct. It is what we do. Do wolves need a degree to form their pack. No. Politics is instinct and therefore based on a natural right or proclivity.
A claim with no proof, "politics is instinct". Have you read Aristotle's treatise on Politics? And again this is not about politics it is about demonstrated irresponsibility.
Logical fallacies of Strawman and Red Herring.
Observation: Every human, from the poorest to the richest, from the dumbest to the smartest, from the ugliest to the most beautiful, is a part of the social contract. As such, they have the inalienable right to participate in our political forums. They might suck. They might get in the way. They might even stink. But they are there.
A claim with no proof. The social contract is a theory not a fact or law.
Logical fallacy Appeal to Ignorance.
Quick conclusion: "Point Four" is anti-human and plainly illogical.
Your points have not been proven and as a matter of fact do not follow logic but rather are a profound advertisement for logical fallacies and the appeal to emotion rather than intellect.
(1) "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government". Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
This is not in keeping with the intent of the founding fathers or the delineated legal writings in the constitution expounding upon voting rights. A simple case of the Supreme Court over stepping its constitutional limits. The fact is was not challenged is due to the unwillingness of the elected officials to step up in light of its popular support. But it does not make it legal.
(2) "Equality before the law" is a fundamental cornerstone of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The US government forced the world to accept the UN. It was largely an American idea. Live with your monster and stop acting like the Germans or French or British are trying to force you to do anything. It's the other way around.
The day the UN overrides the US government is the day I go to war, I'll be damned if I will live by their edicts.
Logical fallacy Appeal to Force.
(3) "We the People of the United States"...not "We the rich and propertied People of the United States"...or "We the educated People of the United States". Of course, "People" in those days did not mean slaves or indians, etc. But these views of the "founding fathers" no longer apply. Rightly so. The "founding fathers" were not gods.
My advice is to stick to Germany as this is a discussion regarding the USA, not Germany, the EU, NATO or the UN.
ray: 
