Posted on 10/02/2012 9:35:34 AM PDT by bkopto
It makes zero sense that my vote – a working, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen who studies candidates and issues on the ballot – is cancelled out every four years by someone who knows little about our nation’s business… and does even less to contribute it.
Giving the right to vote to unintelligent and uninformed people – statistically those most likely to not work, not pay taxes, and contribute nothing of substance to society – is tantamount to giving them a license to steal. And it’s a very, very bad idea.
The idea of government “of the people, by the people, and the people” pre-dates the United States by some 2000 years, dating back to ancient Greece. In the Greek system, with a population of an estimated 250,000, only an estimated 30,000 (about 10%) were “full,” voting citizens: women, children, and slaves were not considered citizens.
And of the 30,000, only about 5,000 (about 2% of the total population) actually exercised their right to attend assembly meetings and voted.
The basic idea was that the people who contributed the most to society, and were the most knowledgeable about its genuine needs, were the ones trusted to make the decisions about how things should be run… and paid for.
Technically, the United States is not a democracy: it’s what is called a “Constitutional Republic.”
That means that the members of each branch of government are elected directly by the people, and the scope of authority for each branch is intentionally limited by the Constitution… to prevent any one branch from amassing too much authority.
Clearly, the Founding Fathers’ greatest fear was a centralized federal government that could overpower the people, either with ballots (hence, the three branches of government) or bullets (hence, the Second Amendment.)
While the Constitution says nothing about “one man, one vote” (that emerged from court cases in the 1900) what most people don’t realize that, when our country was founded, our voting rights started much like the ancient Greeks; as we evolved – and adopted the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments – voting rights were broadened. And that’s, by and large, a good thing.
What’s not a good thing is that, by opening up voting to anyone with a pulse, we’ve turned voting into something less than a treasured right entrusted to our most responsible citizens: today, less than half of all eligible voters (40-55%) cast their ballot, and many who do vote do a marginal job educating themselves on the issues.
What has resulted, however, is something that may not be in the United States’ best long-term interest: the “low information voter” as political operatives label them.
These are people who cast their votes for the candidate who’s cooler… funnier… more charismatic… has the neatest website… or takes time from his campaigning to appear on “The View.”
Or, conversely, voters who has been led to dislike a candidate’s opponent by misinformation, spin, or outright lies. The ability to govern, to lead, to act responsibly, to be trusted to protect America’s international and long-term interests… fall by the wayside, because we like someone else’s Twitter feeds more.
If you Google the words “stupid” and “voters” you’ll get treated to a YouTube cornucopia of Idiocy in Democracy.
People who are so stupid, that their opinion shouldn’t matter… especially in setting our national course headings, or choosing our leader.
Their dim-wittedness isn’t a function of sex, age, race, religion, or any of the other classic forms of categorizing people; these people simply defy demographic description due to their denseness.
And we want these morons banding together, and selecting our national leadership?
But there is a solution; I call it “Progressive Vote Values.” It’s a lot like “Progressive Tax Rates” where they more money you earn, the higher tax rates you pay… only in this case, the more you know about the issues facing America, the higher the value your vote.
If I were responsible for setting voting laws, I would immediately put into place the following non-discriminatory laws:
1) When you register to vote, you must take – regardless of party, income, race, religion, etc. – the U.S. Citizenship test (given in English) that all new immigrants do. Before immigrants earn the right to vote, they must pass a 100-question written test, to ensure that they have sufficient knowledge of our nation’s history, constitution, and law-making processes. Some of the questions.
What do we call the first ten amendments to the Constitution? The House of Representatives has how many voting members? If both the President and the Vice President can no longer serve, who becomes President? The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers. Name one of the two longest rivers in the United States.
Those are very good questions; if a soon-to-be citizen can answer those, he or she can probably be trusted to be informed enough on the issues facing America to vote.
Hence, the value of your vote will be determined your score: if you score 100% — and why wouldn’t you? – your vote counts in full; if you score a 50%, your votes counts for one-half.
Before heads start exploding at the ACLU, NAACP, and SPLC, these are not “literacy tests” given only to one group of voters, as prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965: they would be the standard, uniform tests given to ALL voters… and modeled directly after the test given to modern-day immigrants before they are granted citizenship in the United States.
2) If you don’t pay any sort of taxes – income tax, property tax, capital gains, something other than sales tax – you vote is automatically reduced by 50%. One of the biggest issues in political campaigns is taxes and spending… if you’re not paying taxes, by definition, you’re deciding how everyone else’s money is getting spent. That’s not fair.
3) Ballots and voting instructions are printed in U.S. English only… not the half-dozen languages currently supported by bankrupt counties across California.
4) In order to ensure that each voter is who they claim to be, they will need to present a state-issued photo ID. This enables the vote tabulation system to accurately count each vote as proportionally appropriate for each voter.
Of course, critics of this program will call it racist, sexist, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and elitist… when, of course, is it none of those things. No one is be singled out on any demographic basic.
It’s like flunking your driver’s test: you have no business being on the road unless you know what you are doing. Same goes with the voting booth.
If your vote only counts for 50% in 2012, you’ll have four years – until 2016 – to 1) study American history, 2) get a job, 3) learn English, or 4) get a photo ID.
In the old days, people used to get a whole college degree in that amount of time. You can probably handle those four things.
Raise voting age to 25 (military exemption)
All voting on single date (no absentee except, again, military)
Photo ID required
Dip your finger in indelible brightly colored ink
bingo, bango, bongo: free and fair elections
Amen. Furthermore, assuming I remain alive and able I would spill blood to prevent universal franchise from ever being re-established. It is the very death of democracy.
But I do know this: I am a government instructor at a local college and am appalled at the (lack of) intelligence on the part of the “youth vote.”
We were handed stacks of voter registration cards to distribute to our students. I refused. As I explained, voting is a civic duty, a sacred right for a citizen and if students of voting age were not going to go through the trouble of registering themselves, fine, they are not motivated to learn the issues and thoughtfully select a candidate to vote for. In my view, if they researched and learned about the issues at hand, then they would have the motivation to register to vote. Simple.
I discuss in class state and local government, how it works, doesn't work, examine the constitution and our Bill of Rights, and I try to get them to THINK. I ask questions. I explore their opinions and challenge all opinions no matter what they are. Most can't defend why they FEEL a certain way and certainly can't explain why they THINK a certain way. And I am supposed to hand out voter registration cards to them?
I tell them they are adults and have a responsibility to learn and exercise judgment, and if they snicker when I throw out Sarah Palins name and can't tell me WHY they snicker (other than Colbert or John Stewart makes fun of her), then I tell them they need to find out why they feel/think the way they do, to not let media personalities tell them what to feel/think.
Actually had a student tell me outside class she is not voting this year because she doesn't think she know enough about the candidates or their positions to cast an informed vote.
Thing is, she is the type that is responsible enough to not vote makes her responsible enough to vote if she educated herself. I told her not to give up, yet, to read, listen, and watch the debates and then decide if she is going to pass on voting.
Just me. . .as I watch the other instructor mock Romney in class and eagerly hand-out registration cards.
If that's what you think then you may very well flunk your own citizenship test.
U.S. Supreme Court & all other federal judges are not elected. And the presidency is voted on by the Electoral College, not directly by the people.
I would be pleased if we can get to “ONE PERSON ONE VOTE”, please excuse the “political correctness”. In my state, Mississippi, my vote only counts for .95% of a whole vote because of vote fraud. eric holder and the DOJ are holding up Voter ID because they believe that is okay for these less intelligent voters to steal part of my vote to impower the marxist like holder. When the marxist have total control we will still have electins but they will be meaningless. The last line of an anti-voter ID paper from the Brennan Justice Center at NYU makes the case FOR Voter ID. It says “Voter ID only makes a difference in close elections anyway.”
I’ve been saying this for years. There needs to be some kind of standard test, to inform people and make sure people are informed, before voting for who represents our country and WE THE PEOPLE. Handle it just like they do when people get their drivers license.
It’s like flunking your driver’s test: you have no business being on the road unless you know what you are doing. Same goes with the voting booth.
With the housing market collapse & an ongoing stagnant economy, I'd argue many of those buying houses are less intelligent than those who choose to rent.
“2 does this include all federal employees including the military? After all they have a pro-government bias as well”
The military is pro-USA, not “pro-government.” There is a difference.
And they earn their pay.
Welfare voters get their money for nuthin’ and their chicks for free. They aren’t earning anything.
This means, welfare slugs turned themselves into a ward of the state when they take the money and don’t earn it. In effect, they lost their “majority” (right to be treated as an adult), therefore, they lose their vote. If I was king. . .
One vote per $10,000 in Federal Income Tax paid is quicker and easier. :)
Yes, and it should be based on acreage, one vote per acre.
Ghetto dwellers in big city crap-holes would at best get 1/4 of a vote.
Professors from political science departments who will insure that only those agreeing with their radical socialistic views will receive the nod to vote.
I don’t believe all the original states had a property owner requirement anyway. Most did but I believe a few required paying a small poll tax at the time of voting. Other states like PA were actively creating voters by practically giving land away to increase their electoral clout.
People who think a landowner requirement will fix anything are fooling themselves.
Yeah. The whole “property owner” deal opens up to a plethora of caveats.
A simple standardized civics test would suffice, for all non local elections.
Nonsense. There are too many patriotic Americans who don't own property. A more logical requirement would be something along the lines of the citizenship test mentioned above. A passing grade would convey the right to vote, with the option of retaking the test as many times as necessary if you fail.
Since we have trouble passing laws that would require voters to present photo i.d. before voting, the chances of requiring anything beyond that are zero. I sympathize and empathize with the author of this piece, but he’s tilting at windmills.
This uses some bad assumptions.
To start with, while political involvement *can* be a good thing, an incredibly important principal of America is that you *don’t* have to involve yourself with government. You shouldn’t *have* to, unless you *want* to.
For many this is a radical notion. Imagine if you lived your day to day life *not* reading and hearing what a bunch of egotists in Washington are doing? Most of what they do is just as dull, or *should* be as dull, as what your local planning and zoning board does. So why are they constantly in the news like annoying Hollywood celebrities?
The typical American should be free to live their entire life with little or no interaction at all with the national government. Our states government should matter to us more than the national government, and our local government should matter most of all. If we care.
In the US constitution, “The People’s House”, the House of Representatives, was supposed to be our voice in the federal government. The states were supposed to appoint our senators, to watch after their interests, and the president chosen by the electoral college, indirectly picked by the people as well, based on the population of their states.
For the American people to *have* to involve ourselves in politics as much as we do means that the system has failed. The federal government is doing things it shouldn’t, *forcing* us to involve ourselves with their mess.
But it is a false choice. Choosing Pepsi or Coke even though you don’t want to drink cola. And every day in the “news”, advocates for Pepsi and Coke demand that you support one or the other of them. That you *care* which of them are chosen.
So who should vote? Simple. Those who qualify by being US citizens who are not ex-convicts. If they want.
Having a job or property has no bearing on whether or not you care enough to vote. Being unemployed does not make you any less a citizen.
In 2008, 56.8% of the people who could have voted, did vote. This means that 43.2% of registered voters chose to not vote. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Get rid of all the social programs and then let everybody vote. That takes the voting for your handouts out of the equation.
Of course it has about as much chance of happening as anything else.
Not really. All people will have to do is memorize answers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.