A media entrepreneur's election-day thought experiment has ignited a fierce online debate over whether every American ballot should really carry the same weight.
Tom Elliott, the founder of the Grabien multimedia marketplace, posted the proposal on social media on November 3, the day of the 2026 midterm elections. The idea rests on a simple premise that cuts against decades of conventional wisdom: that not "every ballot deserves the same weight."
"On the issue of democracy, I'm opposed. But if we insist on keeping the vote, we should at least stop pretending every ballot deserves the same weight. Here's my proposal, which we can call 'Weighted Suffrage,'" Elliott wrote. His post has since drawn more than 125,000 views and hundreds of replies.
Under the plan, every citizen would begin with 100 points. "Your ballot in a federal election counts as (points 100) of a vote," Elliott explained.
From there, a voter's points would rise or fall based on conduct and contribution. A "top federal income tax" payer would gain 50 points, while someone who receives more in government benefits than he or she pays in taxes would lose 60.
Age would factor in as well, with the youngest voters losing 25 points and the oldest gaining 25. Any voter could also raise his or her standing by passing the same civics exam administered to immigrants seeking naturalization.
Felony and misdemeanor convictions would cost points, while being a parent or a first responder would earn them. The outlet that first highlighted the plan, The Western Journal, also framed it as rewarding military service.
Perhaps the most pointed provision targets the federal workforce itself. Federal employees, contractors and bureaucrats would see their ballots discounted.
"You don't get to vote for your own raise with a full-weight ballot," Elliott wrote in defense of that rule. The system would also have firm limits, since "the floor is zero" and "the cap is 200."
In practice, that means the least responsible voter's ballot could count for nothing, while the most civic-minded citizen's ballot could count as two. Elliott insisted that no one would be shut out entirely.
"Notice how nobody is barred from voting," he wrote. "Everyone keeps a path back to full weight: pay in, stay out of trouble, learn how the government works."
He also argued that the current approach makes little sense. "The system stops pretending the view of a law-abiding, taxpaying community leader should be equally weighted against a fentanyl-addled repeat felon surviving on handouts," Elliott added. "Done right, the system incentivizes not only better govt, but better behavior."
Supporters of the concept point out that, in some states, the vote of an incarcerated murderer carries as much power as the vote of a taxpaying, law-abiding father of five. That comparison has become a rallying point for those who believe the franchise should reflect responsibility.
Elliott is not alone in questioning universal suffrage. Christian theologian and apologist Dr. Joseph Boot has gone further, arguing that some groups should not vote at all.
"Universal suffrage is destroying what's left of democracy. Here's who shouldn't get a vote: 1. The Incarcerated 2. Those on parole 3. Non-taxpayers 4. Children under 18 5. Students living off tax-funded loans 6. Those living entirely off benefits 7. Non-citizens 8. The illiterate," Boot wrote in March 2024.
Popular streamer Asmongold made a narrower argument earlier this month centered on voter identification. "If you can't get an ID to vote, you shouldn't be voting," he said during a livestream. "Anybody who doesn't have an ID is probably a moron."
"And I think you have to ask yourself the question, is it a good thing that people who don't have IDs are the ones voting?" he added. "If they're too lazy or dumb to get an ID, do you really want that person deciding the next president?"
Unlike outright disenfranchisement, Elliott's model is built around incentives rather than exclusion. Its backers argue that rewarding work, service and good conduct, while penalizing dependency and crime, would produce both a more responsible electorate and a better-run government.
Login