Debt Perverts the Vote

So, we already know that the have-nots like to vote to take things away from the haves, but here is another problem: the borrowers and the lenders collude against those that don't borrow or lend. Borrowers, like junkies, don't want the lending to stop. Lenders, meanwhile, have been making enough money to lobby congress and solidify their position far beyond what they would have in the free market. 'Too big too fail' just doesn't exist in the market.
The people who neither borrow or lend are a minority in this country- a minority that likely should be enfranchised, rather than the rest of us, if one really wants to go about having some sort of governance in which votes occur.

I remember reading, in a footnote in Kristin Lavransdatter, that it took four generations of free landowning (i.e. no debt or claim against it) to become one of the aristocracy. (I highly recommend the book, the version edited by Tina Nunnally- the characters are frustrating, but you come away with an appreciation of how things actually worked in that society.) Meanwhile, the American government has sold our future generations; and so many of us have put ourselves in hock as well.

People can always be tempted by a bribe, but the briber actually has to go get something of value and surreptitiously give it to the official. An official in debt is compromised before any case appears before him. It is also doubtful that voting population in debt can vote for the necessary corrective action.