Someone with low IQ who owns a trailer should qualify because they own a trailer?
Sadly, for better or worse, everyone has to have the right to vote. We can sit here and come up with whatever rules we want and claim that that is the way we should determine who should be able to vote, but putting something like that into practice would be funny and tragic to watch unfold in reality.
I know it’s a cheap shot to take, but reading a couple of responses here that argue for qualifications of intelligence in order to vote, while they make mistakes in grammar and in in spelling is kind of funny. I realize that I am more than capable of making similar mistakes, but it’s still pretty funny to read.
>> Sadly, for better or worse, everyone has to have the right to vote.
That’s one of those “truism” statements that one tosses out like it came down the mountain on stone in the arms of Moses.
We’re supposed to just nod and agree but not question it.
Well, I’m questioning it. The privilege of voting is far from an endowment of the Creator.
One’s skin color should not determine one’s voting status. Nor should one’s gender.
One’s intelligence, ability to functionally read and write, such like that? You can make a STRONG case that a democracy will function better when its leaders are chosen by those with understanding. Of course, such a qualification can be abused too.
One’s wealth? Probably should not be a qualifier, put like that. But again, those with SKIN in the game — tax payers vs benefit takers — should have more say. Or the system degenerates into a mob “voting themselves largesse”.
Call me a heretic, but philosophically I disagree with you that “for better or worse everyone has to have the right to vote”.
Practically, of course, I know my position doesn’t stand a chance of ever being implemented in this country again.