>> 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.
The inherent problem with your logic of deciding who gets to vote is that depending upon who is in power, those rules will inevitably change.
You will be quite satisfied with your limitations of voting rights right up until the moment when those limitations are redefined in a manner that works against you instead of for you.
Tinkering with something as fragile as this stuff usually leads to bad things.
My point is that no matter how bad things are, enacting changes similar to what you are suggesting could lead to far worse scenarios. Obviously, this is just my opinion.