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.
“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%.”
Dumb idea. What about retirees and military members serving in a combat zone?
the best way to achieve this is to eliminate the tax code.
make all govt funding voluntary, i.e. people who earn and create wealth can decide for themselves how much to kick back to governments. Then it would matter less what morons were elected, the smart people could just ‘defund’ them when they got out of line.
Freedom works every time.
LOL! The Clintons could not have voted in 1992 or 1996.
No vote for Limbaugh.
Not since the 14th Amendment, its not. And especially if you’re in a Southern state. Just try requiring voters to provide photo ID, if you doubt me...
>>No vote for Limbaugh.
Anyone worth a darn would serve to become a citizen
I suspect Limbaugh would have done so under that criteria
If he didn’t, it’s his beeswax
.
Now that is truly an interesting idea! I’ve actually pondered on that!
I think...........that it would have the effect of seriously restraining Federal Central Gov’t authority over the States.
Found at Wikipedia: “Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that this led to the gradual “slide into ignominy” of state legislatures,[2] as well as an overextension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures. In addition, concerns have been raised about the power of governors to appoint temporary replacements to fill vacant senate seats, both in terms of how this provision should be interpreted and whether it should be permitted at all. Accordingly, noted public figures have expressed a desire to reform or even repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.”
“I think originally the founding fathers only wanted property owners to vote.”
I’ve been saying this for years.
But he had a boo boo on his knee.
No Pay....No Say
The fat ass chick has volunteered that she does not deserve to vote and will pass on this year’s election.
Israel uses that system I believe. 2 years of mandatory national service is required for everyone. If you aren’t up to IDF standards, there are non-military roles.
Today, in the 21st century, I could show you a crack house in Oak Cliff (Dallas sub) that someone owns. 10 miles away, I can show you highly productive citizens that live in the residences at the Ritz Carlton, some of which are owned, and some of which are rented from the Ritz.
Now I own a home at the moment. A home that in later life I intend to sell in favor of an upkeep provided residence be it a condo or apartment. It makes absolutely no sense why I should lose my right to vote because I made a practical decision as age dictates a change in lifestyle.
The idea that land ownership grants a greater stake in America really is so 18th century.
You said “land”, we said “property”.
Then if you are an average middle class American, Barbara Streisand will not only cancel your vote, but the vote of everyone for miles around you. Bill Gates and George Soros can get together and elect everyone between the two of them. (not really) but it’s only slight hyperbole.
My wedding ring is property. My automobile is property. My wristwatch is property. Hell, even my dog is property. Now if you mean real property, that’s also known as land.
How about we just bring back dueling and see what happens after that?
It’ll be like the last time we had dueling. Older men will fall to brash and younger opponents who have better eyes, quicker reflexes, stronger muscles and all the other benefits of youth to win physical contests. The real history of dueling isn’t as romantic as the fantasy.
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.