You usually have to be a member of that party to vote in their caucuses or primaries (registered Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/etc.). Further, the winner of the caucus/primary doesn’t represent the voters in the House or Senate; they only represent them in the race for those seats.
So your post is accurate, but doesn’t address the OP, IMO.
All of this and the previous posters statements about caucuses are probably. Nevertheless, I would say that that the Iowa Caucus has a huge effect on who
become President of the United States and therefore is for practical purposes very much like an election
On the other hand, I can vote in the US, but am taxed at a negligible level.
In my county, there is a newly-instituted room tax on lodging establishments of any size.
It was voted on by the voters of the area only. Since it’s a “motel tax”, and most of the local voters do not use motels, those who pay do not vote and vice-versa.
So it’s an ideal tax – voters vote themselves money from non-voters. The only restraint is the spectre that a high tax might discourage visitors. The art of taxation consists of setting the rate low enough to ensure the payers don’t mind, but contribute a bundle anyway.
Or to put it another way, the art of taxation is to get the largest amount of feathers from the gander with the least amount of hissing.
When you think about it, it all comes down to the definition of “representation”. Tory opponents of the American colonists demands would have responded by saying that the colonists were represented – they were represented by the member of the House of Commons who, although elected by the (adult, male, rich, Protestant) residents of a particular territorially-defined constituency, each represented the entire British nation, including the colonists.
The colonists didn’t buy this, of course, with results that we know. But in fact a very similar argument was, implicitly or explicitly, employed in the US with respect to women, slaves, etc who were taxed but could not vote, and indeed is still expressed in this very thread with respect to children (“represented” because their parents can vote, in beowulff’s suggestion).
And this comes back to fundamental republican philosophy. Is voting a private act? Do I cast my vote in the way that advances my own interests? Or do I have a civic duty to my small influence on the government in the same way that Barack Obama is morally obliged to use his rather greater influence, in the interests of the community as a whole?
The more we insist that people are entitled to do the former, the weaker the argument that there is any justification for denying votes to felons, resident aliens, or indeed anyone who is habitually subject to US law.
One common way many cities raise money without irking voters is to pile on a lot of taxes on visitors. Hotel rooms, car rentals (especially at or near airports), etc. Of course politicians being politicians, the fees can eventually get so large that conventions start taking their business elsewhere.
Thanks for all the replies so far! - a lot of food for thought and answers I wouldn’t have thought of by myself.
Taxation without representation
What about stadium districts? I have to pay a tax so millionaires can play a childs game in a big, gaudy stadium, but the people on the stadium board are not elected and I have no recourse if I don’t like how they are spending the money or running things at the stadium.
I seem to remember someone taking this point to court a few years ago and the court essentially saying “Too bad! Suck it!!”:mad:
Agreed.