The right to vote must be earned
Our country was not founded as a “democracy” for a reason. Karl Marx once wrote: “Democracy is the road to socialism”. He was right. This is why he favored democracy, because he knew it led to socialism and communism. When the masses realize they can vote themselves benefits from the treasury, they will want larger and larger socialistic government.
Our genuine founding fathers, you know the ones, the great American Patriots, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc… knew better than Marx because they understood that an absolute democracy, meaning allowing everyone of age to be eligible to vote, would mean serious trouble and terrible threats to private property rights, individualism and prosperity.
It is for this reason that we were formed as a Republic which is a nation of laws as opposed to a democracy which is one of majority rule – better and more accurately described and understood as “mob rule”.
Marx promoted democracy because it always leads to his preferred method of governing in Utopia. Our founders knew it too, that is why everyone couldn’t vote. They understood that if everyone were allowed to vote, it was only a matter of time before the people would discover that they could and eventually would vote themselves the entire treasury without contributing to it, unconcerned about how the money may have gotten there.
Voting has morphed into a right and must be reigned in to again be viewed as an earned privilege, not an inalienable entitlement granted at a particular age regardless of circumstance. Sounds crazy, but this is what we were founded upon. The intent was not to try to keep power to themselves; they knew that the only way to keep power in the hands of every individual was to limit the infringements upon it by government.
Family Comparison
When a decision is to be made in a family, are the children consulted? Not in my family. I don’t ask my two year old what color to paint the house. Children haven’t earned the right to an opinion. Call me selfish, but I bring in the money, I provide the shelter, I buy the food, I make the decisions. My family is not a democratic institution.
Children don’t vote on these things in families because our houses would be painted pink with purple poke-a-dots and we would be eating ice cream and cake for breakfast. They can’t participate in decisions or dictate where the family money is spent because they don’t have the experience or knowledge and so don’t understand the ramifications of the decisions or the value of someone else's money and time.
I remember when my teenage son told me in anger that when he was 18 he could do anything he wanted. I couldn’t ground him then. He thought that was the law – he was a funny kid. I calmly told him, that that would be fine if he moved out. That was when he could make his own rules. As long as I am the provider, it is only common sense that I make the decisions about what is needed and what is bought. If you are living in my house, you don’t vote. I was a little nicer maybe, but that was the gist of it.
Many parents have this same discussion every year, yet haven’t made the connection why everyone shouldn’t be able to vote. Whether a child in a household or a parasitic national moocher, their opinion about how the providers money is spent should be earned.
Much like a child, the welfare recipient hasn’t earned the right to make decisions for the country. He hasn’t the experience to make good ones, and so should not be allowed to participate in important decisions such as voting for leaders.
I agree with the liberal thinking that a country should be run like a big happy family in this particular instance. Dependent, non-contributing members should not be allowed to be included in the decision-making process until they begin to financially contribute to the family and show they are responsible enough to deserve consideration of their ideas.
In my years of financial counseling, I have run across dozens of parents at their wits end because their 17 year old wants to attend pricey college “X”, and damn the cost. They have literally been tears flowing in my office because they don’t know how they will ever pay for it. Despite parental objections, and suggestions for more reasonably priced schools, the kid has his mind made up. The parents most often try to figure out a way to pay the $50,000 or so a year because that is the school the kid wants to attend.
My response is a little different than what they expected from a financial counselor. I ask them this question:
“This is a huge financial decision, over four or five years it can be close to a quarter of a million dollars in many cases. It affects not only you, but your other children if any, and your retirement planning too. Do you really want to leave a decision of such magnitude, one that will affect your family’s financial future for many years to come - to a 17 year old?”
Some wake up to that, and others, well, unfortunately others mortgage their house for 15 more years to cover the college costs – much like we’ve mortgaged our country to the entitled class. Why does college cost so much? Government intervention; If they did not guarantee so many loans, college tuitions would be less than half what they are now.
In my house children can persuade, they can argue, whine, they can even sometimes vote, - but I hold 51% of the authority because ultimately the consequences of the decision lies with those responsible for paying the bills.
Back to the Regressive Principle
Voting has a lot to do with the decision-making for a nation. It seems rational to me to have the best decision-makers doing the deciding. Those would be the ones who are at least a little successful in life, and can read. You know the ones, those acting like adults. The two suggested qualifications for voting that follow (the ability to read and the payment of at least some tax) would mean that a voter must earn this right in some way; He must prove his adulthood. Although I suggest both, (along with identifying the person voting) we have neither now. Because of the complete lack of voter qualifications, we get what we deserve at election time; a horde of irresponsible, inexperienced, self-serving destroyers with little or no concern about the damaging consequences their policies inflict upon the people of this nation. Because they are not the ones responsible for suffering the consequences, they vote any benefit their little selfish hearts desire. Does this sound like a good game plan for any nation?
Identifying the person voting, voter literacy testing, or requiring some kind of contribution to the cause is not discrimination. There is no logical reason why identification at the polling booth should not be mandatory. Voting is important to the future of this country; ensuring that only qualified citizens vote is in everyone’s best interest.
Literacy Testing
It is a blemish on our great history, but it is true that that for some decades several primarily southern states disenfranchised many black voters by requiring them to pass a literacy test in order to vote. On the surface, that seems like a good idea. People should not be able to vote if they can't read a relatively simple paragraph. Some states held blacks to this literacy rule, but they did not hold white people to the same standard. Houston, there is a problem.
After long and painstakingly thoughtful deliberation, the powers in government determined that the trouble was not that many stupid white people who couldn't read were allowed to vote untested. No, that wasn't it. They were concerned that many stupid black people couldn't vote because they were tested for literacy.
Call me naive, maybe crazy, but I don't want any stupid illiterate people voting at all, black or white. If you can't read, I am thoroughly insulted that your vote counts as much as mine does. Your opinion about who should govern me should not be considered at all. So I am fine with literacy tests. I don't want stupid whites voting; I don't want stupid blacks voting either.
The predominant thought process in governmental decision-making is irrational. For example, when we find ourselves so deeply in debt we can't cover costs, the problem is not that we are spending too much, but that we don't have enough money immediately available. So, deeply in debt, over and over again, the government solution is to borrow more money to alleviate the debt crisis. Now, boys and girls, don't try that at home with your own family budget, it doesn't work unless you have the power to tax, seize property or print money.
Direct from the foolhardy governmental blueprint, Lyndon Johnson, along with the finest governmental idiot brains in the 1960’s went to work. They didn't see the problem as many stupid, illiterate white people voting, and what adverse effect that might have on the country. No, the problem was that not enough stupid black people were allowed to contribute to our national demise in the same destructive manner. They believed that the situation which allowed stupid white people to vote while stupid blacks could not, was not so much that the standards were not equally applied, but that they were not equally ignored.
To resolve this issue, through the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was ultimately determined that the error was not in the unfair applications of the standards. It wasn't that whites weren't tested nearly as often, the problem was that literacy standards existed at all.
Rather than determining that illiterate people regardless of color shouldn't be able to vote, by taking the vote away from stupid white people, instead they ensured that stupid black people must also have the same rights as stupid white people to bring down our country. The result not surprisingly, was a dramatic increase the overall stupid voter count.
In 1965 the National Voting Rights Act was passed to make it fair to everyone. It was fair to everyone except the thoughtful intelligent people who prefer that voters at least be able to read. It was touted as a resounding success. Now all stupid, illiterate people could vote, regardless of color. No state literacy test for anyone of any race would be allowed. This was the government's idea of "fair".
The goal of this legislation was to ensure that thoughtful, well informed, literate, intelligent citizens would have less of an impact in the determination of our elected representatives. This had to be the goal, as it could not have possibly worked out any other way. We now have what big government wanted; leaders elected by the inclusion of a much larger block of uneducated and illiterate voters more likely to support entitlements for the dependent classes.
Is it really unreasonable to demand that a voter be required to demonstrate an ability to read? – or to prove his or her identification? It isn't as though we are asking anyone to pass a physics exam in theoretical relativity, or to write a thesis about the mathematical principles of Archimedes.
Voter Re-enfranchisement Act
OK, maybe re-enfranchisement isn't a real word yet, but what it means is giving qualified voters the representation at the ballot box they deserve. By allowing illiterate people to vote, we have virtually less-enfranchised (another new word) the literate. It is time to "Re-enfranchise" the intelligent.
Bring back the literacy test for all voters nationwide. It will be printed only in English, which will be our national language. It will be a very simple test. Presumably the potential voter must read the following paragraph, or one about the same grade level, and answer the simple question or two or maybe even three attached to it:
"The lazy man is unemployed. He sits home all day and watches television. He drinks beer every night and especially on weekends. He calls the unemployment office every week to pretend that he has been looking for a job. On Sundays in the fall he watches football on television. He never graduated high school. His five children live with their four different mothers because they can get larger welfare payments this way."
Answer the following question.
What is the man's job?
A - Plumber
B - Construction
C - Nothing
D - Lawyer
All of the questions on every ballot can't be the same, and the same paragraph can't be used over and over again, but just from this simple paragraph we can glean many questions that can ensure an ability to read and understand English at a basic level. If the voter can't answer a few simple questions at the beginning of the ballot, his ballot is automatically rejected by the computer just the same if he had made any other stupid mistake.
A couple of more simple questions:
How many children does the man have?
A - 6
B - 5
C - 3
D - 2
How many years of college has he completed?
A - One
B - None
C - Two
D - Five
How many women has he had sex with?
At least:
A - One
B - Four
C - Two
D - Five
There are many, many more questions we could suggest from that simple paragraph. If we write a few more for different ballots, the questions could be endless. If a voter answers the simple question incorrectly, his ballot is rejected. He can no longer walk in, look for and make his mark next to the "D". Let's face it, it is the democrats who want the illiterate voting. We don’t accept the excuse “not everyone is a good test-taker”. Baloney.
Anyone who can't read a simple four or five sentence paragraph and answer the basic question taken from a text in plain English should not have any right to say who becomes our congressman, senator, or president. Is this discrimination towards the poor? If it is, then so be it.
Another part of this new statute is to require identification at voting booths. Now to some this seems to be a big inconvenience, but most believe it is only logical for a citizen to have to prove that they are who they claim to be when casting their ballots for our leaders.
To ensure that our esteemed congressmen won't again go down this expensive vote- buying welfare path, we must implement term limits on United States Congressmen. See principle 5 later.
A simple addendum to the voting issue. Some of us who read history know that one of the reasons our nation became independent from Great Britain was because the settlers refused to be taxed if they were not allowed to vote in England: “No taxation without representation” was the cry. Let’s take that to its logical extension:
No Representation Without Taxation
Repeal the 24th Amendment
The 24th amendment to our constitution removed the right of any jurisdiction to require any tax be paid to allow a citizen to vote in 1964. This was a big mistake. We must repeal it.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for president or vice president, for electors for president or vice president, or for senator or representative in congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
That is wrong.
The opportunity to vote must in some way be earned. Because one exists is not by itself a justifiable qualification to consider his input in decision making. For example: when property tax override votes come up in local elections, only property owners should be allowed to vote in them. Why should a renter be able to vote about property tax increases? Sure, they will be impacted, their rents will go up as the owner’s expenses rise – but they will not be directly affected, and so often don’t make that logical connection. Since they did not buy property, their opinion of property owners tax rates should be irrelevant.
Only those United States citizens with a net tax liability of some kind should be qualified to vote in national elections. Voting must be a privilege that has to be earned – just like in a family situation. It wouldn’t be difficult to qualify, all one has to do is pay some taxes – not even a lot. There could be any number of ways to prove this, a property tax bill, and income tax cover page, a wage statement showing withholding, - but I would support simplest method - a poll tax, which of course has been outlawed by the greatest brains our nation had in the 1960’s. (Was it LSD? – who knows)
A poll tax would enable those who don’t want their friendly poll worker to know any of their personal business to remain confidential. It would eliminate the paperwork fraud that would be pretty easy to accomplish now-a-days with a computer and a printer, and it would force everyone to at least contribute something. How about $10 per voter? Is that too much to ask to contribute to the country? You can even deduct it from your income tax return later – but only if you file one and had net income tax to pay.
With an approach like this our nation and elected representatives would turn out a lot differently. Not only that, but the elections themselves would actually be profitable rather than yet another drain on the taxpayers.
Being able to read is important, but one could make an argument that contributing something to the national or local effort through tax might be even more essential. Requiring either or both of a voter is not heretical.
To summarize simply:
1 - Voting will no longer be a right, it will become a privilege one must earn, qualify for, or pay for in some way.
2 - Voters must positively identify themselves when voting.
These are not irrational arguments, or the demands of a deranged anarchist. This is Enlightened Regressivism, simple common sense. We once required this because it was clearly rational to do so. Later we thought it "progressive" to allow everyone of age to vote and we are seeing the results of that foolishness.
The 24th amendment to our Constitution made “Poll Taxes” illegal. This was passed in 1964 – imagine that, under LBJ, an FDR clone. Repeal it.
Our current voting regulations allows citizens literally to vote property away from others when they don’t even have to properly identify themselves at many polling booths or contribute any of their own efforts to the cause. Now that doesn’t make any sense to me. It is equivalent to a family allowing three children to over-rule the two parents, painting the house purple with pink poke-a-dots and demanding ice cream and cake every morning for breakfast - and the parents reluctantly doing it because they were outvoted three to two.